Alabama's emergency motion asks a federal court to void the Allen v. Milligan injunction using Callais, threatening the state's majority-Black 7th district before 2026 elections.
Alabama filed an emergency motion in federal court asking a judge to lift the injunction that has required the state to use a Special Master-drawn congressional map since the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling in *Allen v. Milligan*, arguing that the Supreme Court's subsequent decision in *Louisiana v. Callais* eliminates the legal foundation for that order [1]. The motion asserts that *Callais* prohibits race from serving as the determinative basis for a district's configuration, and that the court-imposed map therefore cannot stand [1]. The state legislature is simultaneously drafting a replacement map, even as primary election voters have already cast ballots under the existing court-ordered districts [1].
The emergency motion was filed in the federal district court proceeding that produced the *Allen v. Milligan* injunction, the litigation in which the Supreme Court held that Alabama's prior congressional map likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting Black voting power [1]. Alabama's Attorney General is leading the motion practice, and the state is pressing for relief before the 2026 election cycle advances further [1]. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which has tracked the post-*Callais* legal landscape closely, characterized the motion as an attempt to undo *Allen v. Milligan* in real time [1].
The substantive stakes are significant. The court-imposed map created a majority-Black 7th Congressional District, a remedy the Supreme Court specifically upheld in 2023 [1]. If the district court grants Alabama's emergency motion and lifts the injunction, that district would effectively be eliminated pending any new legislative map, which the state legislature has not yet finalized [1]. Critics of the motion argue that *Callais*, which addressed a racially gerrymandered Louisiana map in a distinct factual posture, does not directly override a standing federal injunction entered to remedy a Section 2 violation [1]. Alabama's position, if accepted, would represent one of the first successful collateral attacks on an *Allen v. Milligan*-era remedial order through post-*Callais* emergency motion practice [1].
The district court must now decide whether to hold an expedited hearing, allow supplemental briefing, or deny the motion outright. Meanwhile, the Alabama legislature's parallel map-drawing effort adds procedural complexity: any new map would itself be subject to court review, and its introduction alongside a pending emergency motion creates the possibility of concurrent, overlapping litigation tracks [1]. Redistricting advocates have signaled they will oppose the motion vigorously, and further filings from the LDF and allied organizations are expected in the coming weeks [1].