A three-judge federal panel issued a preliminary injunction Tuesday blocking Alabama from implementing a Republican-drawn congressional map that would have reduced the state's Black-majority districts from two to one, the Associated Press reported. The judges found "undisputed evidence" that the map "intentionally discriminated based on race" and ordered the state to keep using a court-ordered map from the 2024 elections.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, a Republican, announced an immediate appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court and projected confidence about the outcome.
The ruling lands in the middle of a fast-moving redistricting battle across the South, one that could determine whether Republicans hold their slim House majority after November. For the GOP, the Alabama decision is a setback, but not necessarily the final word. The Supreme Court has already shown willingness to revisit the lower court's work in this very case, and Marshall's appeal will test whether the justices agree that the panel overstepped.
Alabama's congressional map saga stretches back years. In 2023, the same three-judge panel ruled that a map drawn by Republican state lawmakers intentionally diluted the voting power of Black citizens. The court held that Alabama, a state roughly 27% Black, should have two congressional districts where Black voters compose a majority or something close to it.
The judges selected their own map, and it was used in the 2024 elections. Under those lines, Democrat Shomari Figures won one of the two districts, a seat Republicans now want back.
The landscape shifted when the Supreme Court issued a ruling that struck down a Black-majority district in Louisiana and weakened the federal Voting Rights Act. The Court's conservative majority then agreed to lift the injunction blocking Alabama's 2023 state-drawn map and sent the case back to the three-judge panel for reconsideration in light of that Louisiana decision.
Alabama moved to reinstate its old map, the one with a single Black-majority district. Republican Gov. Kay Ivey set new special primaries for August 11 in four congressional districts affected by the switch. Voters had already cast ballots in Alabama's May 11 primaries.
Lawyers for Black voters challenged the move, arguing the state's map was intentionally discriminatory and that changing district lines mid-election year would create chaos. Just The News reported that the panel found discriminatory intent in Alabama's redraw after hearing those challenges.
After a seven-hour hearing on Friday, the panel issued its injunction Tuesday. The language was pointed. The judges wrote:
"Ultimately, 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."
The court also addressed concerns about voter confusion from keeping the old map in place rather than switching to the state-drawn version. On that point, the panel pushed back against the state's argument:
"Candidate and voter confusion is troublesome and warrants significant consideration, but we do not see that a preliminary injunction will worsen it. To the contrary, we expect a preliminary injunction to lessen it."
In practical terms, the ruling means Alabama's special congressional primaries will proceed under the previous court-approved districts. The court framed its decision as avoiding what it called an "expensive, aggressive, and perhaps logistically impossible voter reassignment effort."
Attorney General Marshall did not mince words. He called the blocked plan a "blandly unobjectionable congressional map" and said the judges lacked a basis for their decision. His statement carried a clear message to supporters:
"Know this, in my mind, it is not a matter of whether we win this case, only when."
Marshall's confidence is not without foundation. The Supreme Court already intervened once in this case, lifting the lower court's earlier injunction and directing reconsideration. Whether the justices will do so again, and on what timeline, remains the central open question. Newsmax noted that the ruling was "a defeat for state Republicans who want to use a map for the November midterms that will give the GOP a chance to reclaim the seat now held by Democratic U.S. Rep. Shomari Figures."
Figures himself said he was pleased but guarded. "This is a significant step in the right direction, but there is still a long way to go before this fight is settled," the Democrat said.
Deuel Ross, director of litigation for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, said the court had "again vindicated the constitutional rights of voters in the Black Belt."
Alabama is not an isolated case. About a half-dozen Republican-led states have enacted new voting districts since President Trump first urged Texas to redraw its U.S. House maps last summer. Southern Republicans moved aggressively after the Supreme Court's landmark redistricting ruling, and the results have been uneven.
Tennessee moved quickly. State lawmakers carved up a Black-majority district based in Memphis that had elected the state's only Democratic representative. The new map gives Republicans a chance to sweep all nine of Tennessee's U.S. House seats. Tennessee also temporarily reopened its candidate qualifying period for August congressional primaries, allowing new candidates to enter and existing ones to switch districts or drop out.
Louisiana's Republican Gov. Jeff Landry postponed the state's congressional primaries, originally scheduled for May 16, until later in the summer so lawmakers could consider a new House map that would eliminate a majority-Black district.
South Carolina took a different path. Early voting began Tuesday for June 9 primaries, and the Republican-led state Senate rejected a plan that would have thrown out those votes and held a new congressional primary in August under revised districts that could have improved Republican chances of winning an additional seat.
The race to redraw maps in Alabama, Tennessee, and South Carolina has played out at different speeds and with different results, a reminder that redistricting fights depend as much on state-level politics and judicial temperament as on the Supreme Court's broad directives.
Democrats have not sat idle. They countered with new districts in California and expect to gain a seat from new court-imposed districts in Utah. The net effect on the House majority remains unclear.
The immediate question is whether the Supreme Court will intervene before Alabama's August 11 special primaries. Marshall's appeal sets up a fast-moving legal fight with direct consequences for the November midterms and for Republicans' already narrow House margin.
Breitbart reported that the state must continue using the same court-ordered districts under which representatives were elected in 2024, meaning, for now, Figures' seat remains structured to favor a Democrat.
The broader redistricting frenzy is part of a push by President Trump to hold on to Republicans' slim House majority in the November elections. Every seat matters. And the legal terrain keeps shifting.
There are legitimate questions about the three-judge panel's reasoning. The Supreme Court weakened the Voting Rights Act provision at the heart of this dispute and explicitly sent the case back for reconsideration. Alabama redrew its map in response. For the lower court to then block that map on the same grounds the Supreme Court questioned is, at minimum, a tension the justices will have to resolve.
At the same time, a finding of intentional racial discrimination is a serious charge, one that, if sustained, carries weight regardless of which party benefits or loses. The Supreme Court faces several consequential cases this term, and Alabama's redistricting appeal may soon join the list.
The panel's decision also raises practical concerns. Voters went to the polls on May 11 under one set of lines. Gov. Ivey set special primaries for August 11 under a different set. Now the court has ordered a return to the first set. Candidates, county election officials, and voters are left to sort out the confusion, exactly the kind of chaos the court said it was trying to prevent.
For conservatives, the frustration is straightforward. The Supreme Court moved the legal goalposts in their favor. Republican lawmakers in Alabama responded accordingly. And a lower court blocked the result anyway, citing the same theory the high court had cast doubt on. If that pattern holds, the Supreme Court's redistricting ruling means less than advertised.
Marshall's appeal will test whether the justices meant what they said. If the Court takes the case and rules for Alabama, the map changes, and Republicans get a real shot at Figures' seat. If the Court declines or delays, the 2024 court-drawn lines stay, and Democrats keep a structural advantage in a state where the GOP dominates every other statewide race.
Either way, the fight over Alabama's congressional map is not about abstract legal doctrine. It is about who draws the lines, who gets to vote under them, and whether courts or legislatures have the final say. Those questions will be answered, just not yet.
When federal courts override elected legislatures on redistricting, the least they owe voters is consistency. Right now, Alabama's voters are getting anything but.