DemDaily: SCOTUS Reinstates Racial Discrimination in Redistricting
June 9, 2026
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) last Tuesday cleared the way for Alabama to use a GOP-drawn congressional map in the 2026 elections that eliminates one of two existing majority-Black districts.
| The most far-reaching civil rights legislation in modern US history, the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA) prohibited racial discrimination in voting by enforcing the rights of racial minorities, as guaranteed by the US Constitution's Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Those protections rapidly eroded under the Courts' growing conservative majority and voter suppression laws passed in Republican-controlled legislatures. Only the part of Section 2 which prohibits "the denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen to vote on account of race or color" remained -- until 7 days ago. |
Louisiana v. Callais
The June 2 decision follows the Court's devastating April 29, 2026 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, which flipped the interpretation of Section 2, dismantling the last pillar of antidiscrimination protections for communities of color under the Voting Rights Act.
The Court's 6-3 decision along ideological lines struck down Louisiana's second majority-Black congressional district as racially gerrymandered -- holding that race-conscious redistricting under Section 2 of the VRA is unconstitutional. The landmark ruling overturned more than 60 years of precedent and all but nullified the gains born out of the Civil Rights Movement.
The Alabama Case
Alabama's seven congressional districts had approximately the same boundaries for the last three decades, with just one majority-minority district. In the wake of the 2020 US Census, the Republican-controlled legislature in 2021 drew a new congressional district map that took into account shifts in population numbers, but not in racial diversity. The Census showed that African American voter representation had increased to 27% of the electorate.
Multiple lawsuits ensued, arguing the new districts violated Section 2 of the VRA by packing Black voters into a single district in central Alabama known as the “Black Belt,” while diluting the state’s other Black residents' voting power by reapportioning them into other districts.
Plaintiffs sought the creation of a second majority-minority district. In January 2022, a three-judge federal court, two of whom were Trump appointees, agreed that the legislature's map violated the VRA.
Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen (R), in Allen v. Milligan, appealed to the US Supreme Court, which, in a June 2023 5-4 decision, ruled in favor of Black Alabamians. SCOTUS sent the state back to the drawing board -- ordering it to follow the lower district court ruling that required “two districts in which Black voters either comprise a voting-age majority or something very close.”
In defiance of the order, the Alabama legislature and Republican Governor Kay Ivey in July 2023 passed a new map that increased the Black voting-age population threshold in the existing majority-minority district seat held by eight-term Congresswoman Terri Sewell (D), while increasing a second district’s Black population. They argued it offered Black voters the opportunity to elect representatives of their choice without carving a second district.
In September 2023, A three-judge federal court blocked the legislature's new congressional map, reprimanding the state, and in October, ordered Alabama to use a subsequent map drawn by a court-appointed special master that included two Black-majority districts for the 2024 elections.
The state appealed and, in May 2025, a federal court reaffirmed that the Republican legislature's 2023 redistricted map violated the VRA and the 14th Amendment, and could not be used for future elections.
| The Supreme Court's April 2026 decision in Louisiana v. Callais, considered a big win for the President and Republicans, immediately benefited Trump's unprecedented mid-decade redistricting battle in targeted states and majority-minority districts. Nearly 70 Congressional districts are, or were, specifically mandated or protected by Section 2. |
Within 24 hours of the Callais ruling, Alabama filed an emergency motion with the Supreme Court to lift the stay on the legislature's 2023 map -- even though early voting had already begun for the May 19 state primaries.
SCOTUS, in a brief May 11 unsigned shadow docket order, vacated the three lower court judgments and remanded Alabama v. Middleton back to the lower court to reconsider its ruling in light of Callais.
In doing so, they allowed the GOP's 2023 map to be used for the 2026 elections while the case proceeded through the judicial process.
In the interim, May 19 primary elections were held for just three of Alabama’s seven congressional districts (CDs 3, 4 and 5), while primaries for districts 1, 2, 6, and 7, delayed awaiting adjudication, were rescheduled for August 11.
On May 26, a three-judge federal panel again barred the state from using the 2023 map, directing it to use the special master's 2023 map instead. The court wrote, “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.”
Alabama immediately appealed to the high court, arguing that "Callais vindicates Alabama’s position on the lawfulness of the 2023 Plan."
The NAACP, ACLU, and challengers countered that it was too late for the court to intervene in the primary -- then just two weeks away -- and pointed to election laws that would be violated, including a GOP provision that prohibits holding a later primary.
On June 2, SCOTUS lifted the stay on the GOP map, writing in Milligan v. Allen that the lower courts "failed to fully consider" the map in light of its Callais decision -- therefore allowing the 2026 elections to proceed under the 2023 GOP-drawn lines.
The Dissent
In a blistering 17-page dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by fellow liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, blasted the conservative majority.
"In addition to being wrong on the merits, the Court’s decision inflicts two grave harms on the public. It debases the democratic process by upending Alabama’s entire election in the name of permitting Alabama to discriminate against Black Alabamians. It also corrodes the rule of law by rewarding Alabama’s gamesmanship and outright defiance of court orders."
She maligned the majority for chosing a path that will cause “a chaotic election” with an intentionally discriminatory, “never-before-used congressional map...that Alabama adopted in unashamed defiance of a prior court order directly affirmed by this Court, and that will require officials to change the voter registrations of hundreds of thousands of voters in just days at best, a task that Alabama previously represented would take months.”
"Now," said Sotomayor, "the Court is squarely faced with a record of the turmoil it has caused and the harm it has wrought."
| "Make no mistake. It is the people of Alabama -- not the Supreme Court - who will have the last word. Now that the congressional map has been set, it is up to Alabama voters to vote like we’ve never voted before and send a message that cannot be ignored -- that all voices deserve to be heard in our democracy.” - Congresswoman Terri Sewell 6/2/26 |
Related
DemDaily: Supreme Court Decimates Voting Rights Act 5/4/26
DemDaily: The 2026 Election Calendar: Disrupted. Important Updates! 5/29/26
DemDaily: Tuesday’s Election Results! Pennsylvania, Alabama, Idaho, Oregon 5/21/26
DemList will keep you informed.
DemList
Connecting You to The Party
Connecting You to Each Other
Kimberly Scott
Publisher
Please Support Our Work!
SignUp for the Daily updates on policy, politics and the players.
Follow DemList on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn
Sources: SCOTUSBlog, Brennan Center, MSNow, NPR, The Guardian, Alabama Daily News, NYT, Politico, US House, Alabama Reflector
