Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall filed an emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, asking the justices to lift a federal court ruling that blocked the state's 2023 congressional map, a map that would shift Alabama's delegation from a 5-2 Republican advantage to 6-1. The move came barely a day after a three-judge panel unanimously rejected the map, and it sets up yet another high-stakes collision between state legislatures trying to redraw their districts and federal judges determined to stop them.
The appeal landed on the desk of Justice Clarence Thomas, who handles emergency matters from the 11th Circuit. Politico reported that Thomas is likely to refer the request to the full court for action. Alabama asked the justices to rule by Monday and to grant an administrative stay immediately, a timeline driven by the state's plan to hold special elections in four affected congressional districts on August 11.
The core dispute is straightforward: Alabama's Republican legislature approved a redistricting plan in 2023 that would eliminate one of the state's two majority-Black congressional districts, both currently held by Democrats. The map was never implemented. Legal challenges kept it frozen for years, and now the same fight has returned with fresh urgency as the 2026 midterms approach.
On Tuesday, a three-judge federal panel ruled that Alabama could not use the 2023 map. The judges found the plan violated the 14th Amendment by intentionally discriminating against African-American voters and diluting their votes. AP News reported that the panel issued a preliminary injunction, requiring continued use of a court-ordered map instead.
The judges did not mince words in their written decision:
"Ultimately, we cannot see our way clear to requiring Alabamians to cast their votes in the 2026 elections under a districting plan tainted by intentional race-based discrimination."
That language frames the dispute as a constitutional violation, not merely a technical disagreement over line-drawing. Alabama sees it very differently.
In its filing with the high court, Alabama's legal team argued the lower court's logic had it backward. The state contended it was being penalized for declining to prioritize the creation of a second majority-Black district over other legitimate redistricting goals, goals like keeping communities of interest together and avoiding the pairing of incumbents.
The filing stated plainly:
"The State did not intentionally discriminate by declining to intentionally discriminate. Drawing an additional race-based district came at the cost of sacrificing communities of interest and pairing incumbents."
Alabama's lawyers also argued the lower court gave short shrift to the state's interest in giving a unified voice to the Gulf region. They accused the panel of unfairly attributing racial animus to the legislature.
Alabama Solicitor General A. Barrett Bowdre put the frustration in sharper terms. The Washington Examiner reported Bowdre argued that the Supreme Court's own recent ruling in Louisiana v. Callais vindicated Alabama's position, yet the lower court decided in a single week that the landmark decision "changed nothing."
Marshall himself expressed no doubt about the outcome. "Know this, in my mind, it is not a matter of whether we win this case, only when," he said.
The entire dispute exists in the shadow of the Supreme Court's April 2026 decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which narrowed the scope of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. That ruling raised the bar for proving racial discrimination in redistricting and overturned race-based congressional districts in Louisiana. Alabama seized on the decision as grounds to revive its 2023 map.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court appeared to agree, at least procedurally. The justices granted Alabama's request to lift a previous lower-court block on the 2023 plan and ordered the three-judge panel to reconsider in light of Callais. The New York Post reported that the high court voted 6-3 to allow Alabama to pursue redistricting, vacating a lower-court order requiring majority-Black voting districts.
But the three-judge panel reconsidered, and reached the same conclusion. It reaffirmed its finding that Alabama's map constitutes an unlawful racial gerrymander, even under the new Callais standard. That defiance is what triggered Wednesday's emergency appeal.
The Supreme Court's recent 6-3 ruling upholding Texas redistricting already signaled the conservative majority's willingness to let state legislatures draw maps without federal interference. Alabama is now testing whether that same majority will intervene a second time in the same case.
Alabama is not fighting alone. Across the country, Republican-led legislatures have moved to redraw congressional maps in the wake of Callais. Louisiana suspended its congressional primary to give the GOP legislature time to redraw districts originally created for minority representation. Florida, Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina, and Mississippi have all redrawn or announced plans to redraw their maps.
The Washington Times reported that the April ruling set off a state-by-state scramble, with Republicans projected to gain up to 14 additional House seats through redistricting in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, and Tennessee. Democrats, meanwhile, could gain up to six seats through their own map-drawing efforts, primarily in New York.
Tennessee Governor Bill Lee captured the Republican argument succinctly: "We owe it to Tennesseans to ensure our congressional districts accurately reflect the will of Tennessee voters." The Tennessee legislature's new map could erase the state's last Democratic seat, a consequence that has already reshaped the political futures of sitting members of Congress.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries offered the Democratic counter: "Across the nation, we will sue, we will redraw, and we will win." That combative posture has played out in courtrooms from Virginia to Alabama, though the results have been mixed at best for Democrats.
The Supreme Court's refusal to revive Virginia's Democratic-drawn map earlier this year underscored the difficulty Democrats face in convincing the current Court to intervene on their behalf.
Alabama's primary elections went forward earlier this month, but state officials declared in advance that they would not tally results in the four congressional districts affected by the 2023 map. Those districts now sit in a kind of electoral limbo, awaiting resolution from the Supreme Court before special elections can proceed on August 11.
The practical stakes are blunt. Alabama is roughly 27 percent Black. The current court-ordered map includes two majority-Black districts, both held by Democrats, Representatives Shomari Figures and Terri Sewell. The 2023 map would collapse those into a single majority-Black district, all but guaranteeing a 6-1 Republican delegation.
Just The News reported that Black voters' lawyers challenged the redraw by alleging discriminatory intent, and the lower court agreed. But Alabama insists it followed the Callais standard by promoting race-neutral objectives, protecting incumbents, preserving communities of interest, and unifying the Gulf region, while drawing the map.
The redistricting battles have already claimed political casualties elsewhere. Tennessee Democrat Steve Cohen dropped his reelection bid after redistricting reshaped his Memphis seat beyond recognition. Alabama's case could produce similar upheaval if the Supreme Court sides with the state.
The question before the justices is narrow but consequential: will they lift the lower court's injunction and let Alabama use the 2023 map for 2026? The state's request for a ruling by Monday signals how compressed the timeline has become. With special elections set for August, every week of delay narrows the window for candidates, voters, and election administrators.
The Supreme Court has already shown its hand once in this case, ordering reconsideration after Callais. The lower court reconsidered and held firm. Now the justices must decide whether a three-judge panel can effectively overrule their directive, or whether the high court will step in and enforce the logical consequence of its own precedent.
When a lower court tells a state legislature it "intentionally discriminated by declining to intentionally discriminate," the law has wandered into a place where only the Supreme Court can set it straight. Alabama is asking. The answer will shape not just one state's delegation, but the ground rules for redistricting nationwide.
