The Supreme Court stayed a ruling that found Alabama's congressional map intentionally racially discriminatory, allowing it to govern 2026 elections under the Purcell principle.
The Supreme Court issued an unsigned per curiam order on June 2, staying a lower-court injunction and permitting Alabama to use its 2023 congressional map in the 2026 midterm elections [1]. The three-judge district court had found the map intentionally diluted Black voters' political power in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, but the stay halts that ruling's effect pending further proceedings [1]. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented [1].
The case, Allen v. Milligan, has a long procedural history rooted in Alabama's repeated attempts to preserve a congressional district configuration that civil rights litigants argue marginalizes Black voters [1]. The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund has been central to the litigation challenging the map [1]. The district court's finding rested on intentional racial discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause, a constitutional holding distinct from the Voting Rights Act claims the Supreme Court addressed in earlier rounds of the same dispute [1]. The stay was granted at the emergency application stage, placing the ruling on the Court's shadow docket rather than through a merits briefing cycle [1].
The order's significance lies in what it permits to stand during the election cycle. A map a federal court found to be intentionally racially discriminatory will govern House elections in Alabama for 2026 [1]. The majority invoked the Purcell principle, which counsels against judicial alteration of election rules close to an election, as the basis for deference to the existing map [1]. Critics of the order noted that the Purcell doctrine was developed to prevent confusion from last-minute court-ordered changes, not to immunize maps that trial courts have specifically found to reflect discriminatory intent [1]. Whether that doctrinal tension produces a cert grant or a merits ruling before the 2026 general election remains an open question [2].
Practitioners advising redistricting clients or state election officials should treat the order as a signal that the Court's current majority is prepared to extend Purcell's reach into Equal Protection litigation, not just VRA disputes [1]. The dissent, authored by at least one of the three noted justices, signals continued disagreement on the scope of that principle [1]. Counsel tracking the shadow docket should monitor whether Alabama or the litigants file further briefing that could accelerate the Court's merits consideration before November 2026 [2].