Supreme Court Allows Alabama to Eliminate Congressional District Held by Black Democrat

The Supreme Court's conservative majority on Monday cleared the way for Alabama to revert to a congressional map with one majority-Black district, eliminating one of two majority-Black districts currently held by Shomari Figures, a Black Democrat.

Objective Facts

The Supreme Court's conservative majority on Monday cleared the way for Alabama to revert to a congressional map with one majority-Black district in a sudden ruling that drew a dissent from the court's three liberal justices. No vote count was released in the Alabama case and the decision was issued only minutes after a briefing opposing the move was filed. The Alabama ruling underscores the significance of the court's April 29 decision on Louisiana's congressional map, in which a 6-3 majority significantly limited the ability of groups to bring claims of racial discrimination under the Voting Rights Act. The change gives Republicans a chance to reclaim the district now represented by Rep. Shomari Figures, a Democrat, who was elected in 2024 under the court-ordered map, making Alabama the first time the state will have two Black members serving in Congress. Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey, a Republican, signed legislation allowing for new US House primaries if courts allow the state to use different congressional districts.

Left-Leaning Perspective

NAACP President Derrick Johnson stated "We are witnessing a return to Jim Crow. And anybody who is alarmed by these developments — as everybody should be — better be making a plan to vote in November to put an end to this madness while we still can." NAACP Legal Defense Fund attorney Deuel Ross vowed to "consider all of our options to fight to protect the rights of these voters and keep the court ordered map in place." U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell, who represents Alabama's other Black-majority district, condemned the legislation as an attempt "to erase their legacy and suppress the voices of Black Alabamians." Senate Minority Leader Bobby Singleton, a Black Democrat, said Republicans are aiming "to strip representation from Black voters in an effort to get another Republican to Congress," adding "We have just only been voting since 1965, and you are now trying to take that voice away from us." Advocate Betty White Boynton said "I was out there in 1965 marching for the right to vote, and now we are back here in 2026 doing the same thing." Shayla Mitchell with the Alabama Election Protection Coalition described what she called "a coordinated effort to push anti-Blackness and white supremacy through the redistricting of maps," stating "they're making an effort to totally erase the voices of Black and brown communities." Left-leaning coverage emphasizes the decision nullifies voting rights protections and reverts to maps courts found racially discriminatory. Voting rights groups say it may be impossible to bring successful challenges under the law in all but the most extreme circumstances. Coverage downplays the idea that the maps are race-neutral and instead focuses on the practical impact: eliminating one of two majority-Black districts that produced the first time Alabama had two Black members in Congress simultaneously.

Right-Leaning Perspective

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall declared "Today, the Supreme Court vindicated the state's long-held position. Now, the power to draw Alabama's maps goes back to the people's elected representatives. That's our Legislature," and stated his job was "to put the legislature in the best possible legal position to draw a congressional map that favors Republicans seven-to-zero." Republican House Speaker Nathaniel Ledbetter called the decision "a massive victory not just for Alabama, but for conservatives across the country." Marshall told Fox News Digital he was "thrilled" by the Callais decision and said Alabama now has "a framework for Alabama to directly defend what the legislature did both in 2021 and 2023, drawing maps based on historical redistricting principles that now I think Callais makes clear were constitutional exercises of that authority." Right-leaning outlets like The Federalist described the outcome as the court clearing the way for Alabama to "implement a new race-neutral congressional map," noting that "such affirmative action districts were historically carved out under past interpretations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to Democrats' benefit." PJ Media framed the ruling as preventing "Democrats once again...from rigging Congress through racist gerrymandering." Right-leaning coverage emphasizes that the 2023 Alabama map was drawn using "neutral goals" and "traditional redistricting principles" without race predominating. The framing centers on state sovereignty and constitutional equal protection, with minimal discussion of the practical elimination of Black voting opportunity. Coverage omits the fact that lower courts found Alabama's 2023 map violated the Voting Rights Act and that the court-ordered map giving rise to Figures' election was the result of years of litigation.

Deep Dive

This case represents the culmination of a decade-long redistricting battle triggered by Alabama's 2021 map that concentrated Black voters into a single majority-Black district. In June 2023, the Supreme Court unexpectedly ruled this violated the Voting Rights Act, requiring Alabama to create a second district. Civil rights plaintiffs successfully challenged the original map, winning a ruling at the Supreme Court in June 2023, leading the state to draw a new map with only one majority-Black district, which the Supreme Court rejected in September 2023, resulting in a court-drawn map with two majority-Black districts used in the 2024 election, when Democrats won both races. The specific angle of this May 11 ruling is its response to the April 29 Louisiana decision weakening Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The Louisiana decision required voting rights groups to find a "strong inference" of intentional racial discrimination, departing from how federal courts have reviewed those claims for decades, when lawsuits could succeed by demonstrating a discriminatory effect regardless of intent. Alabama immediately seized on this to request the Court vacate the injunction requiring the two-district map. What each side gets right: Critics are correct that lower courts have repeatedly found Alabama's maps violated federal law based on discriminatory effect; supporters are correct that the Louisiana decision changed the legal standard. What they leave out: Right-leaning coverage underplays that courts found intentional discrimination in prior Alabama maps, not just discriminatory effect; left-leaning coverage downplays that federal courts had previously rejected Alabama's 2023 map even before Callais was decided. The unresolved question is whether the lower courts will find intentional discrimination under the new "strong inference" standard—a standard voting rights advocates argue may be insurmountable.

OBJ SPEAKING

Create StoryTimelinesVoter ToolsRegional AnalysisPolicy GuideAll StoriesCommunity PicksUSWorldPoliticsBusinessHealthEntertainmentTechnologyAbout

Supreme Court Allows Alabama to Eliminate Congressional District Held by Black Democrat

The Supreme Court's conservative majority on Monday cleared the way for Alabama to revert to a congressional map with one majority-Black district, eliminating one of two majority-Black districts currently held by Shomari Figures, a Black Democrat.

May 11, 2026· Updated May 12, 2026
What's Going On

The Supreme Court's conservative majority on Monday cleared the way for Alabama to revert to a congressional map with one majority-Black district in a sudden ruling that drew a dissent from the court's three liberal justices. No vote count was released in the Alabama case and the decision was issued only minutes after a briefing opposing the move was filed. The Alabama ruling underscores the significance of the court's April 29 decision on Louisiana's congressional map, in which a 6-3 majority significantly limited the ability of groups to bring claims of racial discrimination under the Voting Rights Act. The change gives Republicans a chance to reclaim the district now represented by Rep. Shomari Figures, a Democrat, who was elected in 2024 under the court-ordered map, making Alabama the first time the state will have two Black members serving in Congress. Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey, a Republican, signed legislation allowing for new US House primaries if courts allow the state to use different congressional districts.

Left says: Voting rights groups say it may be impossible to bring successful challenges under the law in all but the most extreme circumstances, with NAACP President Derrick Johnson declaring "We are witnessing a return to Jim Crow."
Right says: Republicans framed the decision as "a major victory for the rule of law, the Constitution, and the right of states to govern themselves," arguing that "states like Alabama have the right to enact maps through the legislative process without being forced into race-driven mandates."
✓ Common Ground
Some voices across the spectrum acknowledge that President Donald Trump initiated an unprecedented mid-decade redistricting effort, with Republicans expecting to gain as many as 14 additional seats from new districts in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida and Tennessee.
The ACLU of Alabama and some voices on the right note that the Callais opinion stated it did not affect Alabama's congressional districts case, with the ACLU noting "For several years now, the court has been consistent: Alabama violated the 14th Amendment by intentionally discriminating against Black voters."
A point of potential agreement exists that the Callais decision itself distinguishes racial from partisan gerrymandering, with Justice Alito explicitly stating partisan gerrymandering is wrong, though he suggests it should be dealt with at the state level rather than by federal courts, as demonstrated by Florida's state law banning partisan gerrymandering.
Objective Deep Dive

This case represents the culmination of a decade-long redistricting battle triggered by Alabama's 2021 map that concentrated Black voters into a single majority-Black district. In June 2023, the Supreme Court unexpectedly ruled this violated the Voting Rights Act, requiring Alabama to create a second district. Civil rights plaintiffs successfully challenged the original map, winning a ruling at the Supreme Court in June 2023, leading the state to draw a new map with only one majority-Black district, which the Supreme Court rejected in September 2023, resulting in a court-drawn map with two majority-Black districts used in the 2024 election, when Democrats won both races.

The specific angle of this May 11 ruling is its response to the April 29 Louisiana decision weakening Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The Louisiana decision required voting rights groups to find a "strong inference" of intentional racial discrimination, departing from how federal courts have reviewed those claims for decades, when lawsuits could succeed by demonstrating a discriminatory effect regardless of intent. Alabama immediately seized on this to request the Court vacate the injunction requiring the two-district map. What each side gets right: Critics are correct that lower courts have repeatedly found Alabama's maps violated federal law based on discriminatory effect; supporters are correct that the Louisiana decision changed the legal standard. What they leave out: Right-leaning coverage underplays that courts found intentional discrimination in prior Alabama maps, not just discriminatory effect; left-leaning coverage downplays that federal courts had previously rejected Alabama's 2023 map even before Callais was decided. The unresolved question is whether the lower courts will find intentional discrimination under the new "strong inference" standard—a standard voting rights advocates argue may be insurmountable.

◈ Tone Comparison

Left-leaning outlets use stark language like "return to Jim Crow," "suppress," "erase," and "white supremacy" to describe what they view as dismantling voting rights protections. Right-leaning outlets emphasize constitutional principles, state sovereignty, and neutrality, using terms like "race-neutral," "rule of law," and "affirmative action districts" to frame the same action. The tone difference reflects fundamental disagreement about whether the 2023 map is race-conscious or neutral, and whether the court-ordered map is a remedy or a partisan gerrymander.