Federal court blocks Alabama from eliminating majority-Black district
A federal court blocked Alabama from using its new congressional map on May 26, in a blow to a Republican effort to oust a Democratic incumbent in November's midterm elections.
The judges ordered the state to use a court-drawn map with two majority-Black seats for the 2026 midterm elections, writing that allowing the map enacted by state lawmakers would require Alabamians to cast votes in the 2026 elections under a map "tainted by intentional race-based discrimination."
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall vowed to "immediately appeal" the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. A three-judge panel from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama issued the unanimous decision.
The panel included U.S. Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus, appointed by President Bill Clinton, and U.S. District Judges Anna M. Manasco and Terry F. Moorer, appointed by President Donald Trump.
"I am disappointed, but not at all surprised, that the three-judge panel has again struck down Alabama’s blandly unobjectionable congressional map," Marshall, the Alabama attorney general, said in a statement.
"Know this – in my mind, it is not a matter of whether we win this case, only when," Marshall said.
The ruling comes after the U.S. Supreme Court threw out a Louisiana congressional map in late April that was drawn to protect the voting power of Black Louisianans. Based on that decision, the high court then tossed out an earlier ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama that had blocked the Alabama congressional map, ordering the local federal court to reconsider challenges to Alabama's map in light of the justices' decision on Louisiana's map.
But the district court found on May 26 that, under the new standard from the Supreme Court's decision on Louisiana's map, the Alabama map was likely still unlawful. That justified issuing a preliminary block on Alabama's map ahead of a 2027 trial, impacting the 2026 midterms.
The court noted that it had already conducted one trial in the challenges to Alabama's map, which involved lawsuits brought by Alabama citizens, including state lawmakers and Black Alabama voters.
Looking at evidence from that trial, the court said plaintiffs challenging Alabama's map would probably be able to show the state legislature intentionally refused to create a second Black-majority district in an effort to dilute Black votes.
Comparing Louisiana's map
In 2023, a closely divided Supreme Court backed the lower court's previous conclusion that Alabama's Republican-drawn map likely violated the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racially discriminatory voting practices. That 5-4 ruling was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by fellow conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Both voted, in the Louisiana case, to limit the scope of the Voting Rights Act.
While Alabama argued that the Supreme Court's recent decision on Louisiana's map vindicated Republican state lawmakers' approach, in its new decision, the lower court noted the 2023 Supreme Court ruling.
The 2023 ruling "would not have occurred if we or it demanded something unconstitutional; there is no world in which we or the Supreme Court demanded the State do anything noxious," the three-judge panel wrote.
The panel also said the Louisiana case involved adding a Black-majority district with an "unusual shape" gathered from a Black population dispersed in Louisiana's four corners. Black Alabamians, by contrast, are "sufficiently geographically compact to constitute a voting-age majority in an additional, reasonably configured district," the panel said.
This story has been updated with additional information.
Contributing: Reuters