Supreme Court lets Alabama use GOP-drawn map eliminating a majority-Black district
On June 2, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Alabama's emergency request to use its Republican-drawn congressional map for the November 2026 midterms, a map with a majority-Black population in only one of the state's seven districts. The unsigned emergency-docket order, decided 6-3 along ideological lines, overrode a three-judge federal panel that had found the map intentionally discriminated against Black voters in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and displaced the court-drawn districts used in 2024. The three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Sotomayor warning that the decision "disregards both democratic values and the rule of law."
Actors
On Tuesday, June 2, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Alabama's emergency application to use its Republican-drawn congressional map for the November 2026 midterm elections. In an unsigned, three-page order issued on the emergency docket, the Court said the state was likely to prevail on its claim that the map was lawfully drawn, and that the lower court had improperly "interposed itself into Alabama's ongoing efforts to conduct its imminent 2026 congressional elections." The justices split 6-3 along ideological lines, with the three liberal justices dissenting.
The order reinstates a map, enacted by the Alabama Legislature in 2023 but never used, that contains only one majority-Black district among the state's seven seats. It displaces the court-drawn districts used in 2024 and overrides a three-judge federal panel that had ruled on May 26, 2026 — for the second time — that the map intentionally discriminated against Black voters in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall had filed the emergency application after that panel ruling. The map is expected to cost Democratic Rep. Shomari Figures his AL-02 seat and to shift Alabama's congressional delegation toward a wider Republican advantage in 2026.
In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the majority "disregards both democratic values and the rule of law," warning of "a chaotic election, held under a never-before-used congressional map that intentionally discriminates against Black Alabamians." The order extends the line of Voting Rights Act retrenchment running through Louisiana v. Callais, the decision the state had read as loosening race-conscious districting requirements. This entry records the Supreme Court endpoint of the Alabama redistricting fight whose lower-court stage is already archived (see the May 26, 2026 federal-panel entry grouped in the mid-decade-redistricting-wave-ede90564 episode).
Why we recorded this
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits drawing congressional districts in ways that dilute the voting power of racial minorities, and the Fourteenth Amendment bars intentional racial discrimination in elections. A lower federal court found twice that Alabama's map did exactly that, but the Supreme Court's emergency-docket order allowed the map to take effect anyway for 2026. We record this because an emergency order blocking a court-ordered VRA remedy — issued along ideological lines while an election approaches — materially narrows the protections the statute was designed to enforce.
Sources
- The Supreme Court reinstates Republican-favored Alabama congressional districts — NPR primary accessed June 3, 2026
- Supreme Court allows Alabama to use congressional map that eliminates a majority-Black district — NBC News primary accessed June 3, 2026
- Supreme Court Allows Republican-Friendly Alabama Congressional Map — NOTUS secondary accessed June 3, 2026
See also
- Federal panel blocks Alabama's GOP congressional map as intentional racial discrimination
- Supreme Court declined to review 8th Circuit ruling barring private enforcement of VRA Section 208 in seven states
- Supreme Court 6-3 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais gutted Voting Rights Act minority-district protections, enabling states to eliminate minority seats
- Louisiana governor suspends U.S. House primaries by executive order, voiding ~42,000 cast ballots
- Supreme Court declines to resolve VRA Section 2 private-right-of-action question, leaving private enforcement in circuit-split limbo
Receive the daily digest by email
One email each morning with every entry filed the day before. Free. No tracking, no ads. Unsubscribe anytime.
