US Supreme Court Allows Alabama to Eliminate Majority-Black Congressional District
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling permitting Alabama to implement a congressional map with only one majority-Black district, reversing lower court orders that mandated two such districts due to racial discrimination concerns. This decision, influenced by the recent Louisiana v. Callais precedent, allows the state to proceed with its 2023 redistricting plan just before primary elections. Liberal justices dissented, warning of voter confusion and the erosion of Voting Rights Act protections. The ruling significantly impacts political representation for Black voters and strengthens Republican prospects in the House.
Editorial summary awaiting refresh
Cross-source coverage
Wire timeline
Justice Sotomayor Dissents as Supreme Court Allows Alabama to Eliminate Majority-Black District
The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority issued a 6-3 order permitting Alabama to eliminate a majority-Black congressional district just one week before the state's primary election. This decision effectively reverses the Court's 2022 ruling in Allen v. Milligan, which had mandated the creation of a second majority-Black district due to findings of intentional vote dilution. Justice Sonia Sotomayor strongly criticized the ruling, arguing that the previous constitutional finding of discrimination remains independent of recent legal discussions. The article contextualizes this event within a broader trend, noting a similar recent decision against Louisiana’s congressional map and ongoing lawsuits challenging Tennessee’s new district lines. Critics, including law professor Justin Levitt, suggest these rulings reinforce public perceptions of the Court making partisan political decisions. The report highlights concerns regarding the erosion of voting rights protections for African American communities in the South, citing actions by the ACLU and referencing the potential voiding of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Raw StorySotomayor Criticizes Supreme Court Ruling on Alabama Redistricting
The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed Alabama to implement a congressional map that eliminates one of two majority-Black voting districts, a decision Justice Sonia Sotomayor strongly condemned as inappropriate and chaotic. In a dissenting opinion joined by all liberal justices, Sotomayor argued the ruling disregards previous findings that Alabama violated the Fourteenth Amendment by intentionally diluting Black voters' power. She highlighted the confusion caused by altering voting lines just days before primary elections. The decision enables Republican leaders to redraw boundaries, potentially endangering Democratic seats, including that of Representative Shomari Figures. This outcome follows the Court's recent weakening of the Voting Rights Act. Civil rights groups, including the NAACP, described the move as a return to Jim Crow-era tactics, urging alarmed citizens to vote in upcoming elections to counter these developments. The case underscores ongoing tensions over voting rights and racial representation in the American political system, with significant implications for future electoral outcomes in Southern states.
The New RepublicSupreme Court Allows Alabama to Eliminate Majority-Black District Amid Sotomayor Dissent
The US Supreme Court issued a 6-3 order allowing Alabama to revert to a congressional map with only one majority-Black district, effectively reversing its previous stance on voting rights just weeks before the primary election. This decision comes despite the state’s population being approximately 26% African American and follows a prior ruling in Allen v. Milligan that mandated a second majority-Black district. Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a blistering dissent, arguing that the court previously found Alabama violated the 14th Amendment by intentionally diluting Black votes, a finding she stated remains independent of recent legal discussions in Louisiana v. Callais. The ruling is seen as undermining Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Concurrently, the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit against Tennessee for approving a new congressional map that dismantles Memphis's majority-Black district, alleging intentional discrimination and retaliation against Black voters' First Amendment rights. These developments highlight ongoing ideological divisions within the high court regarding racial gerrymandering and voting protections.
Raw StorySupreme Court Allows Alabama to Adopt New Congressional Map
The United States Supreme Court has officially lifted a previous mandate that required the state of Alabama to utilize a congressional district map featuring two majority-Black districts. This significant legal decision, announced on a Monday, effectively clears the path for Alabama to implement a new House map without the specific racial composition requirements previously imposed by lower courts. The ruling marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over voting rights and redistricting practices in the United States. In conjunction with this news, Wall Street Journal columnist Jason Riley joined CBS News to discuss his strong opposition to what he terms 'racial gerrymandering.' Riley's commentary highlights the contentious nature of using race as a primary factor in drawing electoral boundaries. This development is expected to have substantial implications for future elections in Alabama and may influence similar redistricting efforts in other states facing legal challenges regarding minority representation. The decision underscores the shifting judicial landscape concerning the interpretation of the Voting Rights Act and constitutional standards for equal protection in the context of legislative map-drawing.
Home - CBSNews.comUS Supreme Court Clears Path to End Black Voting District in Alabama
The US Supreme Court has cleared the way for Alabama Republicans to redraw the state's congressional electoral map, effectively ending a second majority-black district. This decision, issued on May 11, 2026, suspends a lower court ruling that had blocked the new map due to concerns over racial discrimination and the dilution of black voting power. The move aligns with a recent trend of conservative majority decisions restricting the application of the Voting Rights Act, following a similar ruling against Louisiana's electoral map in April. The dispute is politically significant as the Republican Party seeks to secure its narrow majority in Congress ahead of the midterm elections, amidst growing unpopularity of the Trump administration. While the conservative justices argued the previous map excessively relied on race, liberal dissenters warned against removing protections for minority voters. This development highlights the ongoing national debate over gerrymandering and civil rights protections in the Southern United States, where demographic shifts and legislative map revisions continue to shape electoral outcomes.
Folha de S.Paulo - Em cima da hora - PrincipalSupreme Court Allows Alabama to Use Contested Redistricting Map
The U.S. Supreme Court has lifted its block on Alabama's congressional redistricting map, effectively clearing the way for the state to conduct its 2026 elections using a plan that critics argue is racially discriminatory. Although Justice Samuel Alito insisted that the recent Callais decision did not overturn the Court's landmark 2023 ruling, which mandated Alabama to draw a second majority-Black district, the unnamed majority's action appears to contradict this assertion. By allowing the current map to stand, the Court likely ensures that Alabama will proceed with only one Democratic seat, significantly impacting political representation for Black voters. This development marks a significant shift in voting rights jurisprudence and raises concerns about the enforcement of previous protections against racial gerrymandering. The decision has sparked immediate reaction, with Virginia Democrats expressing hesitation regarding their own state's redistricting legal battles amidst this changing judicial landscape. The move underscores ongoing tensions within the Supreme Court regarding voting rights and the interpretation of constitutional protections against racial discrimination in electoral maps.
TPM – Talking Points MemoSupreme Court Allows Alabama to Redraw Maps, Eliminating Two Democratic Seats
The U.S. Supreme Court has granted Alabama a significant victory in its ongoing redistricting battle, issuing an unsigned opinion that permits the state's Republican-controlled legislature to redraw congressional election maps. This decision effectively allows the elimination of two Democratic-held seats and marks a reversal from previous rulings that found Alabama's maps unlawful due to racial discrimination against Black voters. The ruling follows the Court's decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which established new standards for partisan gerrymandering and the consideration of race under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Previously, Alabama was under an injunction preventing map changes until 2030, with a court-drawn map having facilitated the historic election of two Black representatives. Three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented strongly. Justice Sotomayor criticized the majority for discarding lower court findings of discriminatory intent without sound basis, warning of ensuing confusion. This development underscores shifting legal standards for voting rights and electoral map drawing in the United States.
Raw StorySupreme Court Allows Alabama GOP to Redraw Black House District
The United States Supreme Court has issued a 6-3 ruling permitting the state of Alabama to proceed with its congressional redistricting plan, which effectively eliminates a majority-Black House district. This decision marks a significant development in the ongoing legal and political battle over voting rights and racial gerrymandering in the South. The court's majority opinion allows the Republican-led state legislature to implement maps that are expected to consolidate Democratic voters into a single seat, thereby strengthening Republican hold on the remaining districts. Critics argue that this move dilutes the political power of Black voters, potentially violating the Voting Rights Act, while supporters contend it aligns with traditional redistricting principles. The ruling is seen as a major victory for the Alabama GOP and a setback for civil rights advocates who sought to preserve the second majority-minority district. This outcome is likely to influence future electoral dynamics in Alabama and may set precedents for similar redistricting disputes across the nation, impacting the balance of power in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Politics, Policy, Political News Top StoriesSupreme Court Halts Order for Alabama to Use House Map with Two Black Districts
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a ruling that halts a lower court order requiring Alabama to utilize a congressional map featuring two largely Black districts. This decision sets the stage for the state to potentially revert to a map with only one majority-Black district before the upcoming midterm elections, a move that could benefit Republicans in their bid to control the closely divided House of Representatives. The ruling follows a recent Supreme Court decision in Louisiana that struck down a similar district as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, thereby weakening certain provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Alabama officials cited the Louisiana precedent to argue against the existing judicial order. Consequently, the state may enact a law allowing it to void recent primary results and hold new elections under revised boundaries by August. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, arguing that intentional discrimination claims under the 14th Amendment remain viable. This development marks a significant setback for voting rights advocates who had fought for years to secure a second district where Black voters could elect their preferred candidates, reflecting a broader nationwide redistricting battle.
ABC News: Top StoriesSupreme Court Unblocks Alabama’s Racially Discriminatory Map, Contradicting Alito’s Prior Claims
The U.S. Supreme Court has lifted a stay on an old Alabama congressional map previously found to intentionally dilute Black voters, a move likely to eliminate at least one Democratic district. The ruling, issued via the shadow docket without explanation, directly contradicts Justice Samuel Alito’s recent assertion in Louisiana v. Callais that the precedent set by Allen v. Milligan remained intact. Alito had previously distinguished the Alabama case by citing Fourteenth Amendment violations, but this justification collapsed within weeks. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, criticizing the majority’s inconsistency and warning that vacating the lower court’s decision causes confusion just before upcoming elections. While the case returns to the district court, Alabama lawmakers have prepared to use the old map, potentially running out the clock on legal challenges. This decision underscores the Court’s shifting stance on voting rights and racial gerrymandering, raising concerns about the stability of legal precedents protecting minority voters. The move is seen as a significant setback for voting rights advocates and highlights internal contradictions within the Court’s conservative majority regarding the interpretation of constitutional protections against racial discrimination in electoral maps.
TPM – Talking Points MemoSupreme Court Clears Path for Alabama's 2023 Congressional Map
The U.S. Supreme Court has set aside a lower court ruling that deemed Alabama’s congressional map unconstitutional for discriminating against Black voters. In an unsigned order issued on May 11, 2026, the high court remanded the case to the district court, instructing judges to reconsider their decision in light of a recent ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, which invalidated a similar map in Louisiana. This action potentially allows Alabama to utilize its 2023 redistricting plan, which contains only one Black opportunity district, for the upcoming elections. State legislators had previously passed a law to delay the May 19 primary to facilitate this change. The decision faced strong dissent from Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who argued it would create chaos and confuse voters with the primary imminent. They contended that the majority ignored findings of intentional racial discrimination by state officials. Civil rights groups had urged the Court to block the move, but the injunction was vacated, effectively replacing the current map with the 2023 version pending further lower court action.
Roll CallSupreme Court Weakens Key Provision of Voting Rights Act in Louisiana Redistricting Ruling
On April 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision blocking a Louisiana congressional map that included a second Black-majority district, significantly narrowing the application of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, joined by the five other conservative justices, concluding the map created an unconstitutional racial gerrymander by prioritizing race over traditional districting criteria. The ruling shifts the legal standard for vote dilution claims from requiring proof of discriminatory results to requiring evidence of intentional discrimination. In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan argued the decision renders Section 2 'all but a dead letter' and warned it would allow systematic dilution of minority voting power. The case originated after the 2020 census when Louisiana's Republican-controlled legislature drew a map with only one Black-majority district despite Black residents comprising one-third of the state's population. The ruling reverses the practical outcome of the court's 2023 decision and is expected to reshape redistricting battles nationwide.
IndraStra GlobalSupreme Court Weakens Key Provision of Voting Rights Act in Louisiana Redistricting Ruling
On April 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision blocking a Louisiana congressional map that included a second Black-majority district, significantly narrowing the application of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, joined by the five other conservative justices, concluding the map created an unconstitutional racial gerrymander by prioritizing race over traditional districting criteria. The ruling shifts the legal standard for vote dilution claims from requiring proof of discriminatory results to requiring evidence of intentional discrimination under the 15th Amendment. The case originated after the 2020 census when Louisiana's Republican-controlled legislature initially drew a map with only one Black-majority district despite Black residents comprising roughly one-third of the state's population. In a sharp dissent, Justice Elena Kagan argued the majority had rendered Section 2 'all but a dead letter,' warning states could now systematically dilute minority voting power without legal consequence. The decision reverses the practical outcome of the court's 2023 ruling and is expected to reshape redistricting battles nationwide.
IndraStra Global