Alabama filed an emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, asking the justices to let the state use a Republican-drawn congressional map for this year's elections, one day after a federal panel refused to budge from its finding that the map intentionally discriminates against Black voters.
Attorney General Steve Marshall told the high court that Alabama "did not intentionally discriminate against Black residents and should be allowed to hold elections this year under a map chosen by lawmakers, not judges," the Associated Press reported. The state asked for a ruling by Monday as it makes preparations for special primaries set for August 11.
The appeal lands the Alabama redistricting case squarely back before a Supreme Court that just weeks ago weakened the federal Voting Rights Act in a separate Louisiana dispute, a decision that has already triggered redistricting moves across the South.
The roots of the case stretch back three years. Alabama's Republican-controlled legislature adopted a congressional map that carved the state's seven House seats into districts with only one majority-Black constituency. Black residents make up roughly 27 percent of Alabama's population.
In 2023, a three-judge federal court panel ruled that the map intentionally diluted Black voting power. The panel ordered the state to draw districts that included two where Black voters formed a majority or came close to it. Under that court-ordered map, Democrat Shomari Figures, a Black candidate, won a south Alabama seat in 2024.
Then came the Supreme Court's Louisiana redistricting ruling last month. The court's conservative majority struck down a Black-majority district in Louisiana and narrowed the reach of the Voting Rights Act. That decision reshaped the legal landscape for race-conscious redistricting nationwide.
Armed with the Louisiana precedent, the Supreme Court lifted the injunction blocking Alabama's state-drawn map and sent the case back to the three-judge panel for a fresh look.
The panel reconsidered, and stood its ground. Upon further review, the judges concluded that their finding of intentional racial discrimination was "independent of and unaffected by the Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act." They pointed to what they called "undisputed evidence" of intentional discrimination in the way Alabama legislators drew the lines.
The distinction matters. The Louisiana ruling weakened the statutory framework of the Voting Rights Act, but the Alabama panel rested its conclusion on the constitutional prohibition against intentional racial bias, a separate legal footing. By holding firm, the judges ordered that the special congressional primaries "should instead proceed under the previous court-approved districts."
Republican Gov. Kay Ivey had already set new special primaries for August 11 in four congressional districts affected by the map switch. Voters had cast ballots in May 19 primaries under the earlier map. The panel's refusal threw those plans into uncertainty.
One day later, Marshall's office filed the emergency appeal.
This is not an abstract legal exercise. The seat at the center of the dispute, the south Alabama district Figures won in 2024, is one Republicans believe they can reclaim under the state-drawn map. The AP described the appeal as part of a broader push by President Donald Trump to hold on to the GOP's slim House majority in the November elections.
As Newsmax reported, the ruling was "a defeat for state Republicans who want to use a map for the November midterms that will give the GOP a chance to reclaim the seat now held by Democratic U.S. Rep. Shomari Figures." Multiple Republican-led states, including Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas, have attempted to redraw districts after the Supreme Court's Voting Rights Act ruling.
Alabama's case is the first to test how far the Louisiana precedent reaches when a lower court has found not just a statutory violation but intentional discrimination baked into the mapmaking itself.
The Supreme Court's 6-3 decision in the Louisiana case gave Republican legislatures across the South reason to revisit maps that had been locked in by Voting Rights Act challenges. But the Alabama panel's refusal to yield suggests that at least some federal judges see a hard constitutional line that the Louisiana ruling did not erase.
Marshall's argument is straightforward: the state's elected lawmakers, not federal judges, should decide how to draw congressional districts. That principle has deep roots in the Constitution's assignment of redistricting authority to state legislatures. The attorney general flatly denies that Alabama's map was drawn with discriminatory intent.
But the three-judge panel did not equivocate. "Undisputed evidence" is strong language from a federal court. The judges did not merely find that the map had a racially disparate effect, the kind of claim the Louisiana ruling undercut. They found that legislators drew the lines with the purpose of diluting Black political power.
If the Supreme Court sides with Alabama, it would effectively overrule a lower court's factual finding of intentional discrimination, a step the justices rarely take. If it declines, the court-ordered two-district map stays in place, and Figures runs for re-election on favorable ground.
The Washington Times noted that Alabama has returned to the Supreme Court for help, underscoring how central the high court has become in settling redistricting fights that state legislatures and lower courts cannot resolve on their own.
Alabama is not acting in isolation. The AP reported that Republicans in several Southern states have moved to reshape voting districts with large minority populations after the Louisiana ruling. The Supreme Court's earlier decision to overturn Alabama's redistricting order and send the case back for reconsideration was itself part of this chain reaction.
Democrats have responded with alarm. Some, like Donna Brazile, have accused the Supreme Court of reviving Jim Crow, rhetoric that reveals how high the political temperature has climbed around redistricting.
The New York Post reported that the federal panel blocked what it characterized as a "tainted" GOP-drawn map. That framing captures the core tension: Alabama insists its legislature acted within its constitutional authority; the lower court says the evidence of racial intent is beyond dispute.
Meanwhile, the Washington Examiner reported on the state's petition to the Supreme Court, highlighting the urgency of the timeline with special primaries already scheduled and election machinery in motion.
The Supreme Court now faces a deadline of its own. Alabama asked for action by Monday. The justices could grant the emergency request and let the state-drawn map take effect, deny it and leave the court-ordered map in place, or ask for additional briefing, which would itself create chaos given the August 11 primary date.
Four congressional districts are caught in the crossfire. Voters who already cast ballots on May 19 did so under the previous map. Switching maps now would mean different district lines for the special primaries, a logistical headache and a source of legitimate confusion for voters.
Several questions remain unanswered. What specific evidence did the three-judge panel rely on when it declared the case for intentional discrimination "undisputed"? How many voters would be shifted between districts under each map? And how will the Supreme Court handle a factual finding of intentional bias when its own recent precedent narrowed the statutory tools used to challenge such maps?
The Court's recent rejection of Virginia Democrats' redistricting referendum bid showed the justices are not inclined to let lower courts or ballot measures override legislative mapmaking authority without clear constitutional cause. Whether Alabama's case clears that bar is the question of the moment.
At its core, this fight is about who draws the lines, and whether federal courts can permanently override a state legislature's map based on a finding of racial intent that the state flatly contests. Alabama's position is that elected lawmakers, accountable to voters, should make these decisions. The lower court's position is that the Constitution forbids racial gerrymandering, full stop, and that the evidence here leaves no room for debate.
Both sides claim the moral high ground. But only one side has the backing of the Supreme Court's recent direction of travel. The Louisiana ruling signaled that the justices are skeptical of race-based redistricting mandates imposed under the Voting Rights Act. Whether that skepticism extends to overturning a factual finding of intentional discrimination is a different and harder question.
Conservative voters should watch this case closely. The principle that state legislatures, not unelected judges, should draw congressional maps is worth defending. But that principle is strongest when the maps themselves can withstand scrutiny. If Alabama's map was drawn cleanly, the Supreme Court should say so and let voters decide. If it wasn't, no amount of procedural maneuvering will make the problem go away.
Elections should be decided by voters in districts drawn by their elected representatives, not by judges in Washington. But that argument only holds if the representatives did the job honestly.
