The Supreme Court vacated the injunction blocking Alabama's 2023 congressional map, forcing a special primary mid-cycle and raising stakes for Voting Rights Act enforcement across the South.
The Supreme Court issued an emergency order on May 11 vacating the injunction that had blocked Alabama's 2023 congressional map, allowing the state to proceed with that map, which contains only one majority-Black congressional district, for the 2026 election cycle [1]. The order came as early voting was already underway in some Alabama jurisdictions, compressing the timeline for both state officials and voters to adapt to the restored district lines [1]. Civil rights organizations warned that the ruling strips Black voters of court-ordered protections mid-election cycle and introduces confusion at a critical juncture in the 2026 primary calendar [1].
The emergency order arose from the ongoing Allen v. Milligan litigation, in which federal courts had previously found Alabama's congressional map likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting Black voting strength [1]. Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall had filed emergency applications with the Supreme Court seeking to lift the injunction against the 2023 map [1]. Governor Kay Ivey responded to the Court's ruling by convening a special legislative session to pass enabling legislation permitting a special primary in the affected districts [2]. The Alabama Senate had already passed related legislation by May 7, anticipating the high court's action [1].
The legal significance extends well beyond Alabama's borders. The order represents the first direct application of the Supreme Court's decision in Callais v. Landry, which reshaped the analytical framework courts apply to race-conscious redistricting challenges, to an ongoing mid-cycle congressional map dispute [1]. Observers in redistricting litigation across the South are watching closely to assess how broadly lower courts will read Callais when evaluating Section 2 claims going forward. The 2026 House balance of power adds further urgency: Alabama's seven congressional seats include one that could shift depending on which map governs the November general election.
Deuel Ross, counsel with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which has been central to the Milligan litigation, criticized the order as harmful to Black voters who had relied on the injunction's protections [2]. Attorney General Marshall and Governor Ivey welcomed the ruling as a vindication of the state's maps [2]. The special primary timeline and exact election dates in affected districts remain subject to final action by the Alabama Secretary of State, and further litigation over compliance with the Court's order is expected in the district court [1].