MONTGOMERY, Ala. — Alabama’s long-running battle over congressional redistricting has entered another fast-moving phase, with federal judges blocking the state’s latest map, state officials rushing back to the U.S. Supreme Court and Justice Clarence Thomas temporarily declining to give Alabama an immediate win.
At the center of the dispute is whether Alabama can use a congressional map that leaves just one majority-Black district, or whether federal law requires a map with two districts in which Black voters have a realistic opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. The fight began after the 2020 census, when Alabama drew a map that voting-rights challengers said diluted Black voting strength by packing Black voters into one district and splitting others apart.
The U.S. Supreme Court sided with Black voters in 2023 in Allen v. Milligan, affirming a lower court ruling that Alabama’s 2021 map likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. That decision required Alabama to draw a new congressional map, and a court-drawn plan with two Black-opportunity districts was used in the 2024 elections and again in 2026 primary preparations.
What Changed This Year
The latest chapter began after the Supreme Court on May 11 vacated an earlier lower-court ruling and sent the case back for reconsideration in light of its new Louisiana redistricting decision. Alabama leaders argued that the Louisiana ruling weakened the legal basis for the court-drawn map and gave the state room to return to its legislature-drawn plan.
But on May 26, a three-judge federal panel rejected that argument and blocked Alabama from using the state’s 2023 congressional map for the 2026 elections. The panel said the plan intentionally discriminated against Black voters and ordered Alabama to keep using the court-drawn “special master” map instead. The ruling also preserved the special primary election schedule already set for Aug. 11 in four congressional districts.
Thomas’ Role
Justice Clarence Thomas has not issued a final ruling in this round of the fight, but he has already become a key figure because Alabama directed its emergency stay request to him as the circuit justice for the 11th Circuit. On May 29, Thomas declined to immediately halt the lower court’s order, but he did require the challengers to respond quickly to Alabama’s request, signaling that the dispute could still reach the full court on an emergency basis.
Thomas has long been skeptical of how the Voting Rights Act is applied in redistricting cases, including in his separate writings in the original Allen v. Milligan case. In that earlier dissent, he argued that Section 2 does not require Alabama to draw districts so that Black voters can elect representatives in numbers proportional to their share of the population.
Legal Stakes
The legal question now is whether the state may rely on race-neutral redistricting principles even after courts found that the 2023 plan likely or actually discriminated against Black voters. Alabama argues the Supreme Court’s recent Louisiana decision means courts should not require states to draw districts that use race to create additional majority-Black seats. Voting-rights plaintiffs say the state is still bound by the earlier finding that its map unlawfully weakened Black voting power.
The panel’s latest ruling makes clear that, for now, Alabama must continue under the court-drawn map rather than switch to the Legislature’s plan. But the state has already filed new emergency applications with the Supreme Court, asking for a stay and an immediate ruling before June 1. That means the case could change again within days.
Why It Matters
Alabama’s map has national significance because it sits at the intersection of the Voting Rights Act, the Constitution and a broader conservative push to narrow the use of race in redistricting. The outcome could affect not only Alabama’s delegation to the U.S. House, but also how courts across the country evaluate claims that district maps dilute minority voting strength.
For now, the practical result is that Alabama’s 2026 congressional elections remain tied to the court-ordered map unless the Supreme Court steps in again. That leaves the state in a legal holding pattern, with election deadlines approaching and both sides preparing for another round at the high court.