Alabama Returns to Supreme Court Over Congressional Map Blocked as Racially Discriminatory

Alabama asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday to temporarily block a federal court order preventing the state from using its 2023 congressional map, which a three-judge panel concluded intentionally discriminated against Black voters based on race.

State Solicitor General A. Barrett Bowdre told the justices that Alabama and the public face "irreparable harm" without the map because voters would otherwise cast ballots under a court-drawn alternative. The state requested a decision by 10 a.m. on Monday, June 1.

The dispute began in 2021 when Alabama enacted a new congressional map that spread Black voters across three districts in southern Alabama, leaving them a minority in each. Black voters and civil rights organizations sued, arguing the map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting.

A lower court agreed and blocked the map. The Supreme Court upheld that decision in 2023, prompting Alabama to draw a revised map. That map also faced legal challenge and was again blocked by a federal court.

A court-appointed special master then created a third map, which a lower court ordered Alabama to use. After a trial, the court concluded the 2023 map was "an intentional effort to dilute Black Alabamians' voting strength and evade the unambiguous requirements of court orders."

Alabama appealed to the Supreme Court, which on May 11 sent the case back to the lower court for reconsideration in light of the high court's recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais. That decision made it harder for plaintiffs to prove violations of a key voting rights provision. The Supreme Court issued the order without explanation in a one-paragraph unsigned opinion.

Three justices dissented. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote there was "no reason" to return the case to the lower court because the panel had also found the map violated the Fourteenth Amendment through intentional discrimination of Black voters. Sotomayor argued that constitutional finding remained valid regardless of the Callais decision.

When the case returned, the three-judge panel again blocked the 2023 map. The judges wrote they could not require Alabama voters to cast ballots "under a districting plan tainted by intentional race-based discrimination" and that re-examination "in light of Callais yields the same conclusion."

Bowdre argued in Wednesday's filing that the Callais decision "vindicates Alabama's position on the lawfulness of the 2023 Plan" and that the lower court incorrectly ignored the Supreme Court's guidance. He contended the 2023 map balanced the state's legitimate redistricting goals while minimally dividing the Black Belt, a region in central Alabama with a large Black population.

Bowdre criticized the lower court for not requiring challengers to propose alternative maps that would meet Alabama's goals while maintaining two majority-Black districts. He argued the court concluded "that Alabama intentionally discriminated by refusing to intentionally discriminate."

Alabama requested the Supreme Court either temporarily freeze the lower court ruling, reverse it outright, or take up the case and hear arguments in the fall. The Alabama Legislature has already passed a law allowing for a special primary election in affected districts if a federal court permits the state to use the 2023 map.