The Supreme Court's 6-3 emergency order lets Alabama use a map lower courts found racially discriminatory, blocking a second majority-Black district for 2026 midterms.
The Supreme Court issued an unsigned emergency order on June 2, 2026, allowing Alabama to use its 2023 congressional map for the 2026 midterm elections, despite a federal three-judge district court's finding that the map intentionally diluted Black voting strength in violation of the 14th Amendment [1]. The order reinstates a configuration that eliminates what would have been a second majority-Black congressional district, a remedy the lower court had ordered following years of litigation over Alabama's refusal to comply with prior redistricting rulings [1].
The stay arose from Alabama's emergency application to the Supreme Court after the district court moved to impose a revised map ahead of the 2026 election cycle [2]. The case sits within the longer Allen v. Milligan saga, in which Alabama has repeatedly contested federal court orders directing it to draw a second district where Black voters constitute a majority or near-majority [1]. Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall's office pursued the application, arguing the lower court's last-minute intervention violated established doctrine governing judicial interference with imminent elections [2].
The Court's 6-3 conservative majority granted the stay without a signed opinion, invoking the Purcell principle, which disfavors court-ordered changes to election rules close to an election date [1]. The majority held that the district court had improperly imposed alterations on a map already in use as the election window approached [1]. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, arguing the majority's rationale rewarded Alabama's deliberate delay tactics and allowed a constitutionally defective map to govern a federal election cycle [2]. Sotomayor characterized the state's conduct as strategic procedural maneuvering designed to run out the clock on judicial remedies [2].
The ruling carries substantial weight beyond Alabama. The Court's willingness to deploy Purcell in tandem with its emerging post-Callais framework for Voting Rights Act challenges signals that lower courts face a narrowing window to enforce redistricting remedies in election-adjacent periods [1]. At least two other states with pending redistricting disputes are watching the decision for guidance on the viability of late-cycle injunctive relief [2].
The 2026 midterm elections proceed under the stayed map. Whether the district court's underlying liability finding survives further review, or whether a permanent remedy remains available after the election cycle concludes, are questions that will define the next phase of this litigation [1].