Federal Courts Hand Republicans Another Major Election Win
Federal courts delivered Republicans a mixed result Tuesday as the national fight over congressional redistricting continues to accelerate ahead of the midterm elections.
In two major rulings out of Tennessee and Alabama, judges handed the GOP one important victory while also blocking another Republican-backed map that could have helped the party expand its advantage in the House.
In Tennessee, Republicans scored a significant legal win after a federal judge refused to temporarily block the state’s newly approved congressional map. The decision allows the GOP-backed map to remain in place for now as litigation continues.
In Alabama, however, a separate three-judge federal panel ruled against Republicans, preventing the state from using a new congressional map that could have opened the door to an additional GOP pickup opportunity.
The rulings come as redistricting battles intensify across the South following the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which narrowed the legal standards surrounding race-based districting under the Voting Rights Act.
Republican-led states have moved quickly in the wake of that ruling, arguing the Supreme Court made clear that congressional maps should not be built around racial classifications or federally protected minority districts. Conservatives have long argued that race-based districting often functions as a political tool that locks in Democratic advantages under the banner of civil rights law.
The Republican victory came in Tennessee, where U.S. Chief District Judge William L. Campbell Jr. rejected an emergency request from Black Memphis voters and organizations represented by the ACLU and ACLU of Tennessee.
The plaintiffs had asked the court to halt Tennessee’s newly enacted congressional map, which was approved by Republican lawmakers during a special legislative session.
The new map dismantles the Memphis-area district currently represented by Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen and is projected to create a 9-0 Republican congressional delegation.
Democratic activists and voting rights groups claimed the map was racially discriminatory, arguing that Republicans targeted Black voters by breaking apart the majority-Black Memphis district.
They also warned that election deadlines were approaching quickly and argued that waiting too long could make the map difficult to reverse.
“Relief is needed now before the maps are locked in and Black voters are irrevocably forced to use an illegal, discriminatory map,” plaintiffs argued in court filings.
Campbell rejected the request for immediate relief, ruling that the challengers had not shown they were likely enough to succeed at this stage of the case.
“While Plaintiffs may ultimately show discrimination was a motivating factor,” the judge wrote, “the Court cannot say that their likelihood of success on this claim is substantial.”
The judge also declined to accept the argument that Tennessee Republicans engaged in unconstitutional retaliation against Black voters.
Campbell said the court was “unwilling to reach” a conclusion that would treat partisan political action against opposing voters as automatic First Amendment retaliation, warning that such a standard could have consequences reaching far beyond Tennessee.
For Tennessee Republicans, the ruling marks a major step forward in their effort to defend a map they say reflects a race-neutral approach to redistricting. Supporters of the map argue that the Supreme Court has made clear that states should not be forced to preserve districts based on racial targets or quotas.
Nationally, Republicans have increasingly argued that race-based redistricting has been used to preserve Democratic political power by shielding certain districts from normal political competition.
But while Tennessee Republicans prevailed, Alabama Republicans suffered a setback.
A three-judge federal panel ruled Tuesday that Alabama may not use its newly proposed congressional map, which could have created another Republican pickup opportunity.
Instead, Alabama must continue using a court-ordered map that created a second majority-Black district and helped elect Democratic Rep. Shomari Figures.
The Alabama panel concluded that the Supreme Court’s recent Voting Rights Act ruling did not alter its previous finding that the state’s proposed map involved intentional discrimination against Black voters in violation of the Constitution.
“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 ruling stated.
The panel included two judges appointed by President Donald Trump and one judge appointed by former President Bill Clinton.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall quickly vowed to take the fight to the Supreme Court. Marshall defended the Republican-backed map as “blandly unobjectionable” and signaled that the state would not back down.
The split rulings show just how unsettled the legal landscape remains after Louisiana v. Callais. While Republicans see the Supreme Court’s ruling as a green light to unwind race-conscious districting schemes, lower courts are still wrestling with how far states may go when redrawing maps.
The stakes could hardly be higher. With control of the U.S. House likely to come down to a handful of seats, every district line matters.
Meanwhile, South Carolina Republicans recently stepped away from a proposal to dismantle longtime Democratic Rep. Jim Clyburn’s majority-Black district after resistance surfaced inside the state legislature.
Together, the developments show a Republican Party pushing aggressively to reclaim constitutional control over redistricting while facing continued resistance from the courts, Democrats, and left-wing voting rights groups determined to preserve race-based political boundaries.