Federal Court Reaffirms 2026 Use Of 2024 Alabama Map After Supreme Court Review
A three-judge federal panel on Tuesday, May 26, 2026, blocked Alabama from using its 2023 congressional map in the 2026 elections and ordered the state to use the court map voters used in 2024.[1]
The panel said Alabama must, at least for now, use a map that creates two majority-Black districts in which Democrats hold significant advantages.[2] The judges wrote they "cannot understand the 2023 Plan as anything other than intentionally discriminatory." Fox News Alabama filed notice on May 26 that it will appeal the renewed injunction to the U.S. Supreme Court.[3]
Lawyers for Black voters had asked the court to block mid-cycle map changes, saying the panel had already found the 2023 plan intentionally discriminatory and that changing lines would cause election-year chaos.[1] The panel reissued the injunction after reconsidering the case in light of the Supreme Court's April ruling in Louisiana v. Callais and said its intentional-discrimination finding is independent of that decision.[3] The judges added that even if Callais applied, Black voters would likely satisfy the Court's new Voting Rights Act test based on the existing record.[3]
Initial coverage framed the order as a setback for Alabama Republicans who hoped the new map would improve their chances to reclaim a Democratic-held seat.[1] Later reporting stressed that the panel's deeper finding of intentional race-based discrimination survived the Supreme Court ruling, shifting the focus from short-term politics to the judges' conclusions about intent.[3]
The three-judge panel includes appellate judge Stanley Marcus and district judges Anna Manasco and Terry Moorer, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned earlier that the panel's intentional-discrimination finding made the Supreme Court remand legally irrelevant.[3]
Show source details & analysis (4 sources)
📌 Key Facts
- On Tuesday, May 26, 2026, a three-judge federal panel issued a preliminary injunction blocking Alabama from using its 2023 congressional map for the 2026 elections and requiring, at least for now, use of the court-ordered map under which U.S. House members were elected in 2024 (preliminary injunction).
- The panel ordered Alabama to use a map that creates two majority-Black districts in which Democrats hold significant advantages rather than the challenged 2023 plan (2023 Plan).
- The judges wrote they “cannot understand the 2023 Plan as anything other than intentionally discriminatory” and refused to require Alabamians to vote in 2026 under a plan the court described as “tainted” by intentional race-based discrimination (2023 Plan).
- The panel concluded its prior finding of intentional race-based discrimination is independent of, and unaffected by, the Supreme Court’s April 2026 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, and said that even if Callais applied Black voters would likely still satisfy the Court’s new Voting Rights Act test based on the existing record (Louisiana v. Callais).
- Lawyers for Black voters had sought the injunction, arguing the panel already found the 2023 map intentionally discriminatory and that mid‑cycle map changes would create election‑year chaos (Lawyers for Black voters).
- Alabama state officials filed notice on May 26, 2026, that they are appealing the renewed preliminary injunction to the U.S. Supreme Court — which recently issued decisions that have weakened aspects of the Voting Rights Act in other redistricting cases (appealing the renewed preliminary injunction).
- The three-judge panel is composed of appellate judge Stanley Marcus (originally appointed to the district court by Ronald Reagan and elevated by Bill Clinton) and district judges Anna Manasco and Terry Moorer (both appointed by President Donald Trump) (Stanley Marcus).
- Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s May 11, 2026 dissent warned that the panel’s intentional-discrimination finding made Callais legally irrelevant and that the Supreme Court’s remand would cause confusion as voting began (Justice Sonia Sotomayor's May 11, 2026 dissent).
📰 Source Timeline (4)
Follow how coverage of this story developed over time
- On Tuesday, May 26, 2026, the same three-judge panel reissued a preliminary injunction against Alabama's 2023 congressional map after reconsidering the case in light of the Supreme Court's April 2026 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais.
- The panel held that its prior finding of intentional race-based discrimination against Black voters is independent of, and unaffected by, the Supreme Court's new Voting Rights Act standards in Callais.
- The judges wrote that they "cannot see our way clear" to requiring Alabamians to vote in 2026 under a plan "tainted by intentional race-based discrimination," despite what they called a "very tight timeline" before special primaries and the general election.
- The panel said that even if Callais applied, Black voters in the Alabama case would likely still satisfy the Supreme Court's new Voting Rights Act test based on the existing evidentiary record.
- The ruling details the composition of the panel as appellate judge Stanley Marcus (originally appointed to the district court by Ronald Reagan and elevated by Bill Clinton) and district judges Anna Manasco and Terry Moorer, both appointed by President Donald Trump.
- Alabama state officials filed notice on May 26, 2026, that they are appealing the renewed preliminary injunction to the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Justice Sonia Sotomayor's May 11, 2026 dissent from the Supreme Court's remand order emphasized that the panel's intentional-discrimination finding made Callais legally irrelevant and warned that the remand would cause confusion as voting began.
- On Tuesday, May 26, 2026, a three-judge federal panel issued a preliminary injunction blocking Alabama from using a new congressional map for the 2026 midterms.
- The order requires Alabama, at least for now, to keep using the same court-ordered map under which the state’s U.S. House members were elected in 2024.
- Lawyers for Black voters had sought the injunction, arguing the panel already found Alabama’s 2023 map intentionally discriminatory and that mid-cycle changes would create election-year chaos.
- The ruling is a setback for Alabama Republicans who hoped to deploy a new map that would improve their chances to reclaim the seat currently held by Democratic Rep. Shomari Figures.
- The state can appeal the preliminary injunction to the U.S. Supreme Court, which recently weakened the Voting Rights Act in a Louisiana case and has already affected redistricting across several Southern states.
- On Tuesday, May 26, 2026, a three-judge federal appeals court panel blocked Alabama Republicans from using their 2023 congressional map for the 2026 elections.
- The panel ordered Alabama to instead use a map with two majority-Black districts in which Democrats hold significant advantages.
- The judges wrote that they "cannot understand the 2023 Plan as anything other than intentionally discriminatory" and refused to have voters cast ballots in 2026 under a "tainted" plan.
- Alabama Republicans had argued the 2023 map should be allowed following a recent Supreme Court ruling that curtailed the use of race in drawing electoral districts.