Alabama’s US House Map Halted in Trio of Federal Cases (2)

Alabama’s congressional candidates must run under the 2024 maps that yielded two Democratic victories in the state’s seven districts, federal judges ruled in three matters Tuesday.

The preliminary injunction of Alabama’s new map—which would likely yield one Democratic victory—was necessary because the state intentionally discriminated against Black voters in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama ruled unanimously Tuesday.

The three-judge panel found that discrimination ruling wasn’t reversed by the US Supreme Court’s decision last month in Louisiana v. Callais, which weakened the ability to bring effects-based racial gerrymandering cases under the Voting Rights Act. This latest development in a several-year legal saga challenging a redraw of districts came after the high court vacated a prior ruling of the three-judge panel May 11—but the judges stood on their prior decision.

“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,” said the panel made up of 11th Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus, Northern District of Alabama Judge Anna M. Manasco, and Southern District of Alabama Judge Judge Terry F. Moorer.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall (R) said he’s seeking an immediate appeal to the US Supreme Court.

“I am disappointed, but not at all surprised, that the three-judge panel has again struck down Alabama’s blandly unobjectionable congressional map that has been in place for decades,” Marshall said in a statement.

Knowing ‘Vote Dilution’

The panel said the candidates will have to run on the prior court-drawn map, as they were doing until earlier this month, instead of reverting back to a 2023 plan enacted by the legislature which would have eliminated a Democratic-leaning district.

“When the Legislature enacted the 2023 Plan, it made a calculated, purposeful decision to refuse to provide the remedy for discriminatory vote dilution that our order (affirmed by the Supreme Court) required,” the panel said, referencing a 2023 US Supreme Court decision upholding the panel-drawn map.

“The Legislature well knew that a plan without an additional Black-opportunity district would dilute Black Alabamians’ opportunity to participate in the political process, and it intentionally enacted that very plan,” the panel said. “Further, the Legislature well knew what dilutive mechanisms would prevent Black voters in Alabama’s Black Belt and Gulf Coast communities from having any opportunity to elect representatives of their choice, and the Legislature employed precisely those mechanisms.”

The ruling could potentially chip away at the gains Republicans have made following Callais. Litigation has been filed challenging new maps enacted in Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee as the GOP looks to bolster its chance of keeping control of the US House.

Tuesday’s ruling triggered debate over the reach of Callais and the roles of federal courts in these redistricting battles where legislators drawing lines may know where Black voting power is being diluted for ostensibly partisan purposes.

“The message from this panel is clear: courts must fulfill their independent duty to protect voters’ rights, not just rubber-stamp state officials’ efforts to use the Supreme Court’s Callais decision as an excuse to draw Black voters out of a say in our democracy,” Marina Jenkins, executive director of the liberal National Redistricting Foundation, said in a statement.

“This latest ruling against Alabama’s congressional map is another example of unelected courts trying to override the will of Alabama voters and punish our state for standing its ground,” Rep. Barry Moore (R), a candidate for US Senate, said in a statement.

The cases are Singleton v. Allen, N.D. Ala., No. 2:21-cv-01291, injunction issued 5/26/26, Milligan v. Allen, N.D. Ala., No. 2:21-cv-1530, injunction issued 5/26/26, and Caster v. Allen, N.D. Ala., No. 2:21-cv-01536, injunction ordered 5/26/26.