Alabama GOP Asks Supreme Court to Reinstate Congressional Map

Alabama Republicans are once again asking the Supreme Court to step into the state’s high-stakes congressional redistricting battle after a federal court blocked a GOP-backed map from being used in the 2026 elections.

The move comes after a three-judge federal panel ruled this week that Alabama Republicans intentionally discriminated against Black voters, even after the Supreme Court’s recent Louisiana v. Callais decision narrowed the legal framework surrounding race-based redistricting under the Voting Rights Act.

On Wednesday, Alabama officials filed an emergency appeal with the nation’s highest court, asking justices to allow the state to move forward with a congressional map that would likely benefit Republicans heading into the next election cycle.

With control of the U.S. House potentially hinging on only a few seats, the fight over Alabama’s map could carry major national consequences. Even a single seat shift could help determine whether Republicans maintain or expand their House majority.

The emergency filing came just one day after the federal panel ruled that Alabama must continue using a court-approved congressional map instead of the Republican-favored version. That court-drawn map was first used during the 2024 election cycle and helped Democrats secure an additional seat in the state’s congressional delegation.

The case has quickly become one of the most important early tests of how far states can go after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, which weakened longstanding race-based standards under the Voting Rights Act and encouraged several Republican-led Southern states to revisit their congressional maps.

Alabama Republicans contend that the Supreme Court’s decision supports their argument that states should not be forced into race-driven districting. They say the ruling clears the way for Alabama to abandon a map that includes two districts with substantial Black voting populations.

But the lower court panel rejected that argument, saying the Alabama dispute involves more than the Voting Rights Act. According to the judges, the state’s map still carried the stain of unconstitutional racial discrimination.

“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 judges wrote.

The panel also said keeping the current court-approved map in place would not interfere with Alabama’s upcoming election preparations.

The ruling was issued by U.S. Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton, and District Judges Anna Manasco and Terry Moorer, both appointed by President Donald Trump.

Their decision means Alabama must continue using the court-drawn map that created a second district with a sizable Black voting population. That district helped Democratic Rep. Shomari Figures win office, giving Democrats a congressional gain in a state otherwise dominated by Republicans.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall condemned the ruling and signaled that the state has no intention of backing down.

“This is a very fluid situation, and I will do my best to keep the people of Alabama apprised of our efforts,” Marshall said. “Know this—in my mind, it is not a matter of whether we win this case, only when.”

The Alabama redistricting fight has been years in the making and has become one of the central legal showdowns in the national debate over race, representation, and political power.

In 2023, federal courts ruled that Alabama’s original Republican-drawn congressional map likely violated the Voting Rights Act because it contained only one majority-Black district, despite Black residents making up roughly 27 percent of the state’s population. Courts then ordered Alabama to create a second district where Black voters would have a meaningful opportunity to elect their preferred candidate.

Republicans strongly resisted that directive, arguing that the courts were effectively forcing Alabama to engage in unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.

After the Supreme Court’s Louisiana v. Callais decision weakened key race-based redistricting standards, Alabama Republicans moved to revive their preferred map. The Supreme Court had already allowed lower courts to reconsider the Alabama case in light of the new ruling.

But after taking another look, the three-judge panel stood by its earlier conclusion that Alabama’s map involved intentional racial discrimination. The judges said the evidence remained strong regardless of the Supreme Court’s updated guidance on the Voting Rights Act.

The panel said there was still “undisputed evidence” that the map intentionally diluted Black voting strength.

Now the dispute is heading back to the Supreme Court, where the justices may soon be forced to decide just how much authority states have to move away from race-conscious congressional districts after Louisiana v. Callais.