The dispute began five years ago, when Alabama enacted a new congressional map following the 2020 census. Black voters and civil rights organizations alleged the map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by spreading Black voters in southern Alabama across three districts, leaving them a minority in each.
The district court agreed the 2021 map likely violated Section 2 and barred its use. The Supreme Court upheld that decision in 2023 in Allen v. Milligan.
Later that year, Alabama adopted a new map. A federal court concluded the 2023 map also likely violated Section 2 and prohibited its use. The Supreme Court declined to pause the lower court’s ruling.
A court-appointed special master created a new map, which the district court ordered the state to use. In 2025, the court ruled after a trial that the 2023 map did violate the VRA, reasoning it was an intentional effort to dilute Black Alabamians’ voting strength and evade court orders.
Alabama appealed to the Supreme Court, which delayed consideration until after the justices issued their April 29 decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which struck down Louisiana’s congressional map. On Friday, the state asked the justices to expedite consideration of its appeals and sought to have the lower-court orders barring use of the 2023 map put on hold immediately. The justices are not scheduled to issue orders from their next private conference until Monday, May 18, one day before the state’s primary election.
Alabama told the justices its case mirrors Louisiana’s and should end the same way: with elections run based on lawful policy goals, not race. When drawing the 2023 map, Alabama said it sought to achieve neutral goals like protecting incumbents and refused to let race predominate. On Saturday, the state told the court its Legislature passed a law allowing a special primary election for affected districts if a federal court permits restoration of the 2023 map.
In an unsigned, one-paragraph order on Monday afternoon, the Supreme Court granted Alabama’s appeal and sent the dispute back to the lower court for another look in light of Callais. The justices provided no additional explanation.
In her dissent, Sotomayor contended there was no reason to send the case back because the district court had also concluded Alabama violated the Fourteenth Amendment by intentionally diluting Black voters’ votes. That constitutional finding is independent of and unaffected issues in Callais, she wrote.
Sotomayor continued that vacating the decision below would not be appropriate at this time because the congressional primary is next week. Vacating the injunction would immediately replace the current map with Alabama’s 2023 Redistricting Plan until the district court acts, even though voting has already begun.
Finally, Sotomayor noted the district court remains free on remand to decide whether Callais has any bearing on its Fourteenth Amendment analysis or if its prior reasoning is unaffected.