Plaintiffs Ask Supreme Court to Block Alabama’s 2023 Congressional Map for 2026 Elections

Voting-rights plaintiffs told the U.S. Supreme Court that Alabama should not be allowed to use the state’s 2023 congressional map in the 2026 elections, escalating an emergency fight over which districts will govern the state’s next U.S. House races.

The request comes after a three-judge federal panel in the Northern District of Alabama ruled May 26 that the 2023 plan cannot be used and ordered the state to instead use the court-drawn remedial map that was in place for the 2024 elections. Alabama officials, including Secretary of State Wes Allen, asked the Supreme Court the next day to put that order on hold while the litigation continues. The Justice Department also filed a brief backing the state.

The immediate stakes are straightforward: Alabama’s 2023 map would produce one majority-Black congressional district, while the court-drawn map has two districts in which Black voters have an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.

In their June 1 filing, the plaintiffs in the consolidated Milligan, Singleton and Caster cases urged the justices to leave the lower court’s order in place. “Nothing has changed in Alabama or the record to warrant a different conclusion today,” the Milligan respondents wrote. “The Court should deny Alabama’s stay motion on any one or more of these independent grounds.”

The district court’s May 26 order was a preliminary injunction, meaning a temporary ruling issued before a final resolution of the case. According to reporting on the opinion, the panel concluded that Alabama’s 2023 plan was motivated by intentional race discrimination and violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the federal law that bars election practices that dilute minority voting strength, along with related constitutional claims. Reported members of the panel were 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stanley Marcus and U.S. District Judges Anna M. Manasco and Terry F. Moorer.

As quoted by Bloomberg Law, the panel wrote: “Ultimately, we cannot see our way clear to requiring Alabamians to cast their votes in the 2026 elections under a districting plan tainted by intentional race-based discrimination.”

The Supreme Court fight is the latest turn in the redistricting battle that produced the high court’s 2023 decision in Allen v. Milligan. In that case, the justices upheld findings that Alabama’s earlier congressional map likely violated Section 2 and required an additional district in which Black voters could elect their preferred candidate.

This latest round was shaped by the Supreme Court’s May 11 decision to vacate an earlier district-court injunction and send the case back for reconsideration in light of Louisiana v. Callais, a recent ruling affecting some Section 2 vote-dilution claims. On remand, the Alabama panel again reached the same basic conclusion, blocking the 2023 map and reinstating the remedial plan for 2026.

Alabama says the lower court got that wrong and acted too close to an election. The Justice Department’s brief said the panel “flouted Callais” and “violated the principle of Purcell,” referring to a Supreme Court doctrine that cautions courts against changing election rules shortly before voting. The department noted that Alabama’s governor has called a special primary for Aug. 11, 2026, if the state’s preferred map is allowed, and said the district court acted less than three months before that date and after candidate qualifying had closed.

The plaintiffs filed their opposition June 1, and Alabama filed a reply later the same day. As of June 2, the dispute is on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket, where the justices could act at any time. Their next order will determine whether Alabama’s 2023 map or the court-drawn 2024 remedial plan governs the state’s 2026 congressional elections.