Supreme Court Grants Alabama Emergency Bid To Use Map Lower Court Called Intentionally Discriminatory
On Tuesday, June 2, 2026, the Supreme Court issued an emergency stay via its shadow docket and reinstated Alabama's contested congressional map, putting the GOP-favored plan back in place.[1]
The order overturned a three-judge district court that had found the 2023 plan "intentionally discriminatory" and put the earlier GOP map back into use.[2] The map is expected to produce six Republican-leaning districts and one Democratic-leaning district, likely costing Rep. Shomari Figures his seat.[2] The conservative majority issued the stay without full briefing or oral argument, using the shadow-docket process.[1]
A three-judge panel had unanimously reaffirmed after a remand that Alabama's 2023 map was tainted by intentional, race-based discrimination.[2] The Supreme Court's recent narrowing of the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callais also influenced the majority, which faulted the lower court for not giving state legislators the benefit of the doubt.[3] After an earlier Supreme Court order in May, Gov. Kay Ivey canceled elections already underway under a court-drawn map and scheduled an August 2026 special primary.[2]
Initial mainstream reports emphasized the shadow-docket reinstatement and its likely partisan impact.[1] Later pieces highlighted that the majority explicitly rebuked the lower court and drew sharp criticism from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who said the order "disregards both democratic values and the rule of law." MS NOW
Opponents warned that switching maps hours before registration deadlines was operationally impracticable, saying even "Hercules himself could not complete" the required voter-registration changes.[3]
Show source details & analysis (4 sources)
📌 Key Facts
- On Tuesday, June 2, 2026, the Supreme Court issued an emergency stay on the case via the Court’s “shadow docket,” reinstating Alabama’s contested congressional map without full briefing or oral argument (shadow docket).
- The Court’s order overturned a three-judge district court panel and put back into place Alabama’s GOP-favored 2023 map even though that panel had found the plan “intentionally discriminatory” (three-judge district court panel).
- The reinstated map is expected to yield six Republican-leaning districts and one Democratic-leaning district in 2026, and Democrat Rep. Shomari Figures, who represents the court-drawn Second District, will likely lose his seat under the new lines (Shomari Figures).
- The three-judge panel — which included two Trump-appointed judges — unanimously reaffirmed after remand that Alabama’s 2023 plan was tainted by intentional, race-based discrimination and that Black voters still satisfied the Voting Rights Act test as narrowed by the Court (three-judge panel).
- The Supreme Court majority faulted the lower court for not giving state legislators the benefit of the doubt under Louisiana v. Callais and relied on the Court’s recent narrowing of the Voting Rights Act in allowing Alabama to revert to its earlier map (Louisiana v. Callais).
- The Court’s three liberal justices publicly dissented, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the majority “disregards both democratic values and the rule of law,” warning the order would force a “never-before-used congressional map that intentionally discriminates against Black Alabamians” into place (Sonia Sotomayor).
- Opponents warned the change was operationally impracticable on short notice — saying even “Hercules himself could not complete” required voter-registration changes within hours — and after the Court’s earlier May order Gov. Kay Ivey canceled elections underway under the court-drawn map and scheduled a special primary for August 2026 (Kay Ivey).
📰 Source Timeline (4)
Follow how coverage of this story developed over time
- On Tuesday night, June 2, 2026, the Supreme Court's Republican-appointed majority issued an opinion granting Alabama's emergency request to use its contested congressional map, explicitly faulting the lower court for not giving state legislators the benefit of the doubt on intentional discrimination under Louisiana v. Callais.
- Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing in dissent for the three Democratic appointees, said the majority 'disregards both democratic values and the rule of law' and warned the order will force a 'never-before-used congressional map that intentionally discriminates against Black Alabamians' into place just days before deadlines, requiring changes to voter registrations for hundreds of thousands of voters.
- The article details Alabama's argument in its emergency appeal that the three-judge panel's separate finding of intentional discrimination against Black voters was unsound and that the panel flouted Callais, while Democratic lawmakers and Black voter plaintiffs argued in filings that it is 'simply too late' to switch maps because statewide voter registration records must be finalized within hours.
- Opponents' briefs cited operational constraints, saying even 'Hercules himself could not complete' the required voter-registration changes in the time remaining and stressed that the panel's ruling rested on an independent intentional-discrimination finding that Callais did not disturb.
- The piece emphasizes that the three-judge panel, including two Trump-appointed judges, reaffirmed after remand that Alabama's 2023 map was tainted by intentional race-based discrimination and that Black voters still satisfied the Voting Rights Act test as narrowed in Callais, a position the Supreme Court majority rejected in granting the stay.
- On Tuesday, June 2, 2026, the Supreme Court overturned a three-judge district court panel and reinstated Alabama’s GOP-favored congressional map, despite the panel’s finding that the plan was “intentionally discriminatory.”
- The reinstated map is expected to produce six Republican-leaning districts and one Democratic-leaning district in 2026, and Democrat Shomari Figures, who represents the court-drawn Second District, will likely lose his seat under the new lines.
- The three-judge panel, consisting of three Republican-appointed judges (two appointed by President Trump), had unanimously ruled just 15 days after an earlier Supreme Court remand that Alabama’s single-Black-district plan remained intentionally discriminatory even under the Court’s new Voting Rights Act standards.
- NPR notes that in April 2026 the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority greatly narrowed the Voting Rights Act by barring states from purposefully drawing majority-minority districts, a shift Alabama cited when seeking reinstatement of its earlier map with only one majority-Black district.
- After the Supreme Court’s May order allowing Alabama’s old map, Gov. Kay Ivey canceled the ongoing elections that had already begun under a court-drawn map and scheduled a special primary for August 2026 in the affected congressional races.
- The Court’s three liberal justices publicly dissented from Tuesday’s order, arguing the conservative majority violated its own 2006 Purcell v. Gonzalez rule against changing election rules too close to an election.
- The New York Times details that the June 2, 2026 Supreme Court stay came on the Court's emergency, or "shadow docket," without full briefing or oral argument.
- The article provides additional explanation of how the 2023 map reshapes Rep. Shomari Figures' district and why it is viewed as pivotal for a likely 6-1 Republican delegation.
- The Times adds analysis on how the order fits into the Court's recent Voting Rights Act jurisprudence and notes reactions from Alabama officials and voting-rights advocates to the stay.