Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall has filed a Supreme Court challenge aimed at dismantling a lower-court injunction that forced the state to redraw its congressional districts, a legal move that could hand Republicans an additional U.S. House seat and reshape the national redistricting landscape heading into 2026.
The filing follows the Supreme Court's late-April ruling in the Louisiana redistricting case known as Callais, which struck down that state's map and raised fresh doubts about the legal framework that had compelled Alabama to create a second majority-Black congressional district. Marshall told Fox News Digital he was "thrilled" by the Callais outcome and moved quickly to press Alabama's case before the justices.
The stakes are not abstract. If the Supreme Court lifts the injunction against Alabama's 2023 legislature-approved map, the state would likely revert from two largely Black congressional districts to one, improving Republican odds of sweeping all seven of the state's House seats. With a May 19 primary approaching and state lawmakers already in special session through Friday, the clock is running.
Alabama's redistricting saga traces back to Allen v. Milligan, a Supreme Court decision from a few years ago that invalidated the state's prior map. That ruling forced Alabama to draw a second district where Black voters would have a meaningful opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice, a requirement rooted in Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
The so-called Livingston map that emerged from that process was struck down in 2023, and a three-judge panel imposed an injunction requiring a replacement that satisfied the court's racial-representation mandate. Alabama's Republican-led legislature complied under protest.
Then came Callais. The Supreme Court struck down Louisiana's congressional map, including districts centered on New Orleans and a narrow majority-minority corridor stretching from Baton Rouge. Alabama leaders said the decision conflicts with, or at minimum calls into question, the precedent that had constrained their own redistricting authority by requiring racial factors to drive the drawing of congressional lines.
Marshall framed the shift in direct terms:
"Now they have a framework for Alabama to directly defend what the legislature did both in 2021 and 2023. And that is, drawing maps based on historical redistricting principles that now I think Callais makes clear were constitutional exercises of that authority."
But unlike Louisiana, which received direct relief through the Callais ruling, Alabama must first persuade the three-judge panel to lift the existing injunction, or get the Supreme Court to do it for them. Marshall laid out the procedural hurdle plainly:
"And then unlike Louisiana, which was able to get direct relief through that decision, we now have to be removed from the injunction [against Alabama's prior map] by the three-judge panel in order to either go back to the map that is being challenged or give the legislature the authority to draw a new map."
The Washington Examiner reported that Alabama officials filed emergency petitions asking the Supreme Court to allow the state's 2023 congressional map to take effect before the 2026 election cycle. The petition argued that the Court's Callais decision supports reversing the lower-court injunction that created the second Black-majority district.
"Alabama's case mirrors Louisiana's, and they should end the same way: with this year's elections run with districts based on lawful policy goals, not race," the petition stated.
Marshall himself declared his intent without ambiguity. AP News reported that the attorney general said his job was "to put the legislature in the best possible legal position to draw a congressional map that favors Republicans seven-to-zero." Republican House Speaker Nathaniel Ledbetter called the development "a massive victory not just for Alabama, but for conservatives across the country."
That kind of candor will draw fire from the left. But Marshall's argument rests on a straightforward principle: if the Supreme Court has now ruled that race-based map-drawing of the kind imposed on Alabama was constitutionally flawed, then the state should not remain bound by an injunction built on that very framework.
The Supreme Court cleared the way by overturning the lower-court order and directing the lower court to reconsider the case in light of the Callais ruling. If Alabama reverts to the 2023 legislature-approved map, the state would likely have only one majority-Black district instead of two, a change with immediate consequences for the balance of power in the U.S. House.
Alabama is not acting in isolation. GOP-led states across the South are moving to redraw maps after the Supreme Court's April 29 ruling, and the combined effect is expected to net Republicans several U.S. House seats. Mississippi's governor has already called a special session to redraw district maps in response to the same legal shift.
Marshall drew a sharp contrast between how redistricting fights play out in red states versus blue ones. He pointed to New England, where Democrats hold every congressional seat despite significant Republican vote shares.
"[They're] arguing for proportional representation, which is basically what they are saying, they make that same argument in Maine, in Rhode Island, in New Hampshire, where you don't see a single congressional member there from the Republican Party."
The numbers back up his complaint. Maine has an estimated Republican bloc of about 30 percent. Vermont saw roughly the same share go to President Donald Trump in 2024. Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts have between 10 and 40 percent Republican vote share, and more than 40 percent of voters in those states register as unaffiliated or similar. Yet no one files Voting Rights Act challenges demanding a Republican-leaning district in Providence or Portland.
Marshall referenced Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence in the original Milligan case to argue that the legal landscape is evolving:
"You saw some of that sentiment from Justice Kavanaugh in a concurrence in the [Milligan] case that Alabama had there a few years ago, saying there's a point in time in which we have to acknowledge that circumstances have changed."
That concurrence left a door open. The Callais ruling may have walked through it.
The left is not sitting still. New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker descended on Alabama to push back, attending a counter-redistricting forum in Birmingham alongside Birmingham Mayor Randall Woodfin and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Doug Jones. Fox News Digital reached out to Booker earlier this week and did not receive a response.
The forum signals that national Democrats see Alabama's redistricting fight as a proxy war with implications far beyond the state's borders. If Marshall's challenge succeeds, it establishes a template for other Republican-led states to shed court-imposed maps drawn under now-questioned Voting Rights Act interpretations.
Democrats have already suffered a separate setback in Virginia, where the state's Supreme Court struck down a Democratic-led redistricting map. Marshall commented on that outcome, describing the Virginia map as "clearly [done] for hyper-political reasons that kept none of the traditional principles in mind."
The pattern is unmistakable. Courts are increasingly skeptical of maps drawn with race as the dominant factor, and Democrats, who spent years leveraging Voting Rights Act litigation to maximize their own electoral advantages, are finding the legal terrain shifting beneath them.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court's recent Texas redistricting ruling further reinforced the trend, upholding a GOP-drawn map in a 6, 3 decision. Together, these cases paint a picture of a Court that is pulling back from the race-conscious redistricting mandates that shaped the last two decades of electoral map-making.
Marshall's legal effort extends beyond congressional lines. His office is also engaged at the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in a challenge to Alabama's state Senate district map, which was likewise subjected to redrawing based on a Voting Rights Act Section 2 challenge.
"And the other thing, not only are we working on the state congressional map, but it's also, we have a state Senate district [map] likewise that was subject to redrawing based upon a [Voting Rights Act] Section 2 challenge."
Marshall described his office as "singularly focused" on securing legal relief as quickly as possible. He acknowledged the legislature's special session but drew a clear line between the political and legal tracks:
"While we'll obviously watch what the legislature is doing, our job is to secure the relief from the [2023 redistricting] injunction as quickly as possible."
Secretary of State Wes Allen has indicated the May 19 primary will go on as expected, suggesting the immediate electoral calendar is not in jeopardy regardless of how the Supreme Court rules on Marshall's petition.
Marshall, who is also running to succeed retiring Sen. Tommy Tuberville this fall, has staked significant political capital on this fight. The outcome will test whether the post-Callais legal landscape is as favorable to state legislatures as Republicans believe, or whether the lower courts will find ways to preserve the status quo.
The left has spent years questioning the legitimacy of a Supreme Court that doesn't deliver the outcomes they prefer. Now that same Court is telling states they may draw their own maps without treating race as the overriding factor. For Democrats, the problem isn't the law, it's that the law no longer bends their way.
Alabama is asking for something simple: the right to use maps drawn by its own elected legislature. If that's controversial, the controversy says more about the people objecting than the people asking.
