Supreme Court permits Alabama to use congressional map struck by lower court as racially discriminatory

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued an unsigned order permitting Alabama to use a congressional map for the 2026 elections that lower courts had repeatedly found to be racially discriminatory. This decision follows closely on the heels of the Court's landmark ruling in *Louisiana v. Callais*, 608 U.S. ___ (2026), which significantly narrowed the scope of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). The Court's order in the Alabama case, *Allen v. Milligan*, effectively reverses a lower court's injunction that mandated a remedial map with two majority-Black districts, citing the district court's departure from the new framework established in *Callais*. This development marks a substantial shift in voting rights jurisprudence, making it considerably more challenging for plaintiffs to successfully challenge racially gerrymandered maps under the VRA and potentially the Fourteenth Amendment.

The landscape of voting rights litigation in the United States has been profoundly reshaped by recent actions of the Supreme Court, culminating in a critical, unsigned order that allows Alabama to implement a congressional redistricting map previously deemed racially discriminatory by lower federal courts. This decision, issued late on a Tuesday night, clears the path for Alabama to use its 2023 congressional map in the upcoming 2026 elections, despite a three-judge panel's finding that the map intentionally diluted the voting power of Black citizens. The Supreme Court's rationale hinged on its recent precedent set in *Louisiana v. Callais*, 608 U.S. ___ (2026), signaling a significant recalibration of how courts are to interpret and apply Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA).

At the heart of this legal saga lies Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. § 10301), a cornerstone of civil rights legislation designed to prohibit voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. Unlike the Fifteenth Amendment, which requires proof of discriminatory intent, Section 2 was amended in 1982 to allow plaintiffs to establish a violation if, based on the totality of circumstances, a voting practice results in a denial or abridgment of the right to vote on account of race. This 'results test' was crucial, especially after the Supreme Court's decision in *Shelby County v. Holder*, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), rendered Section 5's preclearance requirement unenforceable, making Section 2 the primary federal tool for combating racial discrimination in voting.

The Supreme Court's recent intervention in Alabama's redistricting dispute, *Allen v. Milligan*, is a direct consequence of its earlier, pivotal ruling in *Louisiana v. Callais*, 608 U.S. ___ (2026). In *Callais*, the Court, in a 6-3 decision, struck down Louisiana's congressional map, which included a second majority-Black district, as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, held that compliance with the VRA did not *require* Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, and therefore, no compelling state interest justified the use of race in drawing the map. This decision effectively narrowed the instances where racial gerrymandering claims can be successfully contested, making it harder to challenge maps that dilute minority voting power by allowing partisan intent to serve as a defense against allegations of racial discrimination.

The Supreme Court's decision to permit Alabama to use its 2023 congressional map for the 2026 elections, despite lower court findings of racial discrimination, represents a significant setback for voting rights advocates and a profound shift in the interpretation of the Voting Rights Act. By instructing lower courts to reconsider their analyses in light of *Louisiana v. Callais*, the Supreme Court has effectively raised the bar for proving racial discrimination in redistricting, making it considerably more difficult to challenge maps that dilute minority voting strength. The unsigned nature of the order, issued from the Court's 'shadow docket,' further underscores the immediate and far-reaching impact of this new jurisprudence.