Supreme Court Allows Alabama Map Under Gerrymandering Dispute
The Supreme Court on Tuesday night granted Alabama's emergency appeal and let the state use a congressional map in the gerrymandering fight over its 2026 elections. A three-judge panel had found the map illegally discriminatory against Black Alabamians. The ruling leaves the state free to keep using the map after lower-court judges said it was tainted by intentional race-based discrimination.
Roberts and the Court
Chief Justice John Roberts was cited in connection with the party-line ruling, after recently saying Supreme Court justices are not "political actors." The majority said the panel departed from Callais and did not heed the presumption of legislative good faith.
The order followed the Court's May 11 instruction that the Alabama lower court reconsider its ruling in light of Callais. On remand, the lower court remained free to decide for itself whether Callais had any bearing on its Fourteenth Amendment analysis.
Panel Finds Illegal Map
On May 26, the three-judge panel said it could not see its way clear to requiring Alabamians to cast their votes in the 2026 elections under a districting plan tainted by intentional race-based discrimination. The panel included two Trump appointees.
That finding stood in direct conflict with the Supreme Court majority's decision to let the map stay in place for now. Alabama Republicans gained an additional congressional seat in the midterms under the ruling at issue.
Sotomayor's Dissent
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the majority chose a path that risks a "chaotic election." In her May 11 dissent, she also said there was "no reason" for the reconsideration order and criticized the Court for discarding the district court's remedial work.
She described the map as "a never-before-used congressional map that intentionally discriminates against Black Alabamians." Her dissent said the majority acted in "unashamed defiance o" the lower court's findings, and the dispute now sits on the map that Alabama can use unless the Court changes course again.
