Alabama’s attorney general has filed emergency motions with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to overturn a federal court order blocking the state from using its 2023 congressional map, arguing that a landmark Supreme Court ruling last month has fundamentally changed the legal ground beneath the injunction.
Story Snapshot
- Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall filed emergency petitions with the U.S. Supreme Court on April 30 and May 5, 2026, requesting that the Court lift injunctions blocking use of the state’s 2023 congressional map ahead of the May 19 primary election.[1][3]
- The Supreme Court’s April 29 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais narrowed how courts can evaluate voting rights challenges under Section 2, requiring plaintiffs to prove that race—not partisan politics—drove a state’s redistricting decisions.[1][3]
- Alabama argues that the court-imposed map now in use was based on a legal standard that Callais has rendered obsolete, and that the 2023 map was designed around geographic communities—the Gulf Coast, Black Belt, and Wiregrass region—rather than racial considerations.[1][2]
- The district court on May 8 deferred to the Supreme Court, leaving the outcome of Alabama’s emergency petitions uncertain as the primary election approaches.[2]
The Supreme Court’s New Standard
The Supreme Court’s Callais decision fundamentally altered how federal courts assess redistricting challenges under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The ruling established that plaintiffs challenging a state’s congressional map cannot treat race and political affiliation as interchangeable; instead, they must affirmatively demonstrate that race—not legitimate political considerations—drove the state’s decisions.[1] Alabama’s Attorney General Steve Marshall argues that the lower court that imposed the current map failed to apply this standard, treating race and politics as synonymous without separating the two.[1]
Alabama’s Argument: Geography, Not Race
Alabama contends that its 2023 congressional map was drawn based on lawful policy goals centered on geographic communities rather than racial considerations.[3] The state designed the map to keep three distinct regions unified within as few congressional districts as possible: the Gulf Coast, the Black Belt, and the Wiregrass region.[2] According to Marshall, the state “drew a map based on lawful policy goals, not race, and the Supreme Court’s recent ruling vindicates that approach.”[3] The emergency motions ask the Court to vacate the injunctions and remand the cases for proceedings consistent with Callais.[1]
The Timing Pressure and Election Cycle Risk
Alabama faces a compressed timeline. The state requested that the federal district court rule by 3 p.m. on May 6, citing the need for preparations before the May 19 primary.[2] The district court, however, declined to act, stating that only the Supreme Court has authority to resolve the matter while it remains pending there.[2] Justice Clarence Thomas, handling the emergency application, ordered plaintiffs to respond by May 11 at 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, leaving uncertainty about whether any ruling will come before the primary election.[1]
Prior Court Findings and the Status Quo
The injunction currently in place stems from a 2023 federal court finding that Alabama’s prior congressional map violated Section 2 by diluting Black voters’ ability to elect preferred candidates. The court imposed a remedial map requiring two majority-Black districts, which has been used in both the 2024 elections and the current 2026 cycle.[1][2] Alabama’s challenge now hinges on whether Callais retroactively undermines the legal reasoning that justified that remedy.[3]
The panel has declined to restore Alabama's 2023 congressional map, holding that they lack jurisdiction to do so while the case is on appeal.
Alabama asked the Supreme Court today to restore that map. pic.twitter.com/ChwoK1qlYC
— SCOTUS Wire (@scotus_wire) May 8, 2026
Broader Pattern of Redistricting Disputes
Alabama’s emergency appeal reflects a wider pattern of post-redistricting litigation spikes following shifts in Voting Rights Act interpretation. Since the Supreme Court’s 2013 Shelby County decision limited federal preclearance authority, states have faced over 200 redistricting lawsuits nationwide, with roughly 40 percent involving Section 2 dilution claims.[1] Such disputes intensify in election years near primary deadlines, creating pressure on courts to either maintain the status quo or grant emergency relief with limited time for deliberation.[2]
Sources:
[1] Alabama passes redistricting bills, special elections hinge on federal court decision
[2] Alabama asks Supreme Court to allow for redrawn congressional map
[3] Alabama AG files emergency request to reinstate congressional …