Supreme Court clears Alabama congressional redistricting map favoring GOP
The Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for Alabama to put in place a new House map ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
Objective Facts
On May 12, 2026, the Supreme Court cleared the way for Alabama to use a new House map ahead of the 2026 midterm elections by setting aside lower court rulings that had blocked the GOP-drawn map, which contained one majority-Black district. The 6-3 ruling included dissents from Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The Supreme Court sent the cases back to the lower court for further proceedings in light of its landmark ruling last month that weakened the Voting Rights Act. The ruling will likely allow Republicans to flip one of the two Democratic-held congressional seats in the state, as the state will revert to a 2023 map that still included one black-majority district. Following this decision, Alabama will hold a special primary election for four of its seven congressional districts.
Left-Leaning Perspective
Liberal outlets and voting rights groups characterized the Supreme Court's decision as a major setback for Black voting power. NAACP National President Derrick Johnson stated "We are witnessing a return to Jim Crow" and urged voters to "be making a plan to vote in November to put an end to this madness while we still can." Justice Sonia Sotomayor's public dissent, joined by the two other liberal justices, declared the action "inappropriate and will cause only confusion as Alabamians begin to vote." Democratic Congressman Shomari Figures called the decision "incredibly unfortunate" and said it "sets the stage for Alabama to go back to the 1950s and '60s in terms of Black political representation in the state." The ACLU and NAACP Legal Defense Fund argued that Callais "did not involve a constitutional intentional discrimination claim" and that "the court's ruling did not affect claims of intentional discrimination — the separate, independent ground on which the district court struck down Alabama's 2023 map," which finding "remains wholly untouched." Alabama Democrat Napoleon Bracy questioned during legislative hearings whether the redistricting bill was about taking representation from Black citizens, asking: "Back then, that map was deemed not in the best interests of Black people in the state of Alabama, right? And then now all of a sudden, if the Supreme Court says something different, the same racist map that was struck down will come back to life and all of a sudden not be racist anymore?" Left-leaning coverage emphasizes the narrowed Voting Rights Act, the intentional discrimination finding that remains on the record, and the procedural confusion of changing election maps mid-primary. The League of Women Voters of Alabama called the decision "deeply disappointing and creates uncertainty and confusion for voters about the 2026 elections." Coverage largely omits discussion of Alabama's traditional redistricting principles or the applicability of those principles post-Callais to non-VRA claims.
Right-Leaning Perspective
Conservative outlets framed the ruling as vindicating Republican arguments about redistricting principles and state authority. Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall told Fox News Digital he was "thrilled" to see the court's decision and said it clarified that "drawing maps based on historical redistricting principles" were now understood as "constitutional exercises of that authority." Alabama House Speaker Nathaniel Ledbetter told Fox News Digital that "SCOTUS taking action on this issue" and that the decision was "a massive victory; not just for Alabama but for conservatives around the country." Marshall argued to CNN that contemporary Alabama is fundamentally different from the state of the 1960s, stating "The Alabama in 2026 is not the Alabama of the early 1960s. It's a new time and a different era." Marshall elaborated: "We have fought for years against courts forcing Alabama to sort its citizens by race, and we were right to fight... The court confirmed what we have been arguing for years. States cannot be forced to gerrymander by race." Conservative commentary noted the apparent double standard, arguing that "When Democrats dominate redistricting in deep-blue states, no one files Voting Rights Act challenges demanding proportional representation for Republican voters." Fox News quoted Marshall as hoping the state would have "a real chance of receiving favorable corrective action from the nation's highest court." Right-leaning coverage emphasizes the court's reasoning on the VRA, principles of federalism, and the partisan opportunity, while largely avoiding detailed discussion of the separate intentional discrimination finding or the procedural disruption of changing maps mid-primary.
Deep Dive
Alabama's redistricting battle reflects the seismic shift in voting rights law triggered by the Supreme Court's April 29 Callais decision, which substantially narrowed Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by requiring evidence of intentional discrimination. The state's 2023 map contained just one majority-Black district out of seven House districts and was adopted after the Supreme Court's June 2023 decision in Allen v. Milligan, which ruled a 2021 map likely violated Section 2, while Alabama's current map, used in the 2024 elections, was selected by a three-judge district court panel and includes two majority-Black districts. The Supreme Court sent the cases back to the lower court for further proceedings in light of its landmark ruling last month that weakened the Voting Rights Act. The procedural complexity is compounded by timing: Gov. Kay Ivey called a special session "even though voters had already begun casting absentee ballots in the May 19 primary election," creating genuine confusion about which map applies when. Right-wing arguments rest on two foundations: post-Callais textualism regarding Section 2, and a broader constitutionalism claiming states possess independent authority to draw maps based on traditional principles without race predominating. Marshall argued that "drawing maps based on historical redistricting principles that now I think Callais makes clear were constitutional exercises of that authority." Left-wing arguments hinge on the district court's explicit finding of intentional discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment, which they contend is legally independent of the Section 2 question. Voting rights groups note that Callais "did not involve a constitutional intentional discrimination claim and the court's ruling did not affect claims of intentional discrimination — the separate, independent ground on which the district court struck down Alabama's 2023 map," with that finding remaining "wholly untouched." The Supreme Court's unsigned order, which provided no explanation, left this tension unresolved. What comes next depends on whether the lower court on remand finds Callais affects the intentional discrimination claim—a question the Supreme Court conservatively punted. The Supreme Court sent the case back to a lower court for additional review, but given the short runway before the state's primary election, Alabama seems likely to prevail with its highly contested map. The stakes are concrete: The change would give Republicans a chance to reclaim the district now represented by Rep. Shomari Figures, a Democrat elected in 2024 under the court-ordered map, which gave the state "two Black representatives in its congressional delegation for the first time in history."