Supreme Court urged to uphold lower court decision striking Alabama congressional map as racially discriminatory

The U.S. Supreme Court is once again reviewing Alabama's congressional map, following a lower federal court's consistent findings that the map is racially discriminatory and violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Plaintiffs in *Allen v. Milligan* have urged the justices to uphold the lower court's decision, which mandated the creation of a second district where Black voters have a fair opportunity to elect their preferred candidates. This ongoing litigation is critical for the future of voting rights, particularly in the wake of the Supreme Court's recent decision in *Louisiana v. Callais*, which significantly altered the legal framework for proving racial vote dilution claims under Section 2, potentially making such challenges more arduous for plaintiffs.

The legal battle over Alabama's congressional redistricting map continues its protracted journey through the federal courts, with plaintiffs now urging the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm a lower court's decision that deemed the map racially discriminatory. This case, *Allen v. Milligan*, represents a pivotal moment for voting rights in the United States, particularly concerning the application and interpretation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). The core dispute revolves around whether Alabama's congressional districts dilute the voting power of Black citizens, who constitute nearly 30% of the state's population but have historically been able to elect their preferred candidates in only one of seven congressional districts.

The Supreme Court's engagement with this case is especially significant given its recent ruling in *Louisiana v. Callais*, which has introduced new complexities into the analysis of racial vote dilution claims. The plaintiffs' latest filing underscores the lower court's extensive factual findings regarding Alabama's "racial geography, racialized politics, and racially discriminatory policymaking," arguing that these findings provide a definitive basis for upholding the injunction against the state's proposed map. The outcome of *Allen v. Milligan* will not only shape political representation in Alabama for the coming decade but will also have profound implications for the enforcement of the VRA nationwide, influencing future redistricting efforts and civil rights litigation.

The legal framework governing redistricting and racial discrimination in voting is primarily rooted in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, alongside the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause prohibits states from denying any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, which the Supreme Court has interpreted to include protections against racial gerrymandering. The Fifteenth Amendment further guarantees the right to vote free from racial discrimination. The VRA, enacted to enforce these constitutional guarantees, is considered one of the most effective pieces of civil rights legislation in American history.

Central to the *Allen v. Milligan* litigation is Section 2 of the VRA (52 U.S.C. § 10301), which permanently prohibits any voting qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure that "results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color." This "results test" was a crucial amendment to the VRA in 1982, overturning the Supreme Court's earlier requirement of proving discriminatory intent in *City of Mobile v. Bolden*, 446 U.S. 55 (1980). The seminal case of *Thornburg v. Gingles*, 478 U.S. 30 (1986), established a three-part test for evaluating Section 2 vote dilution claims: (1) the minority group must be sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district; (2) the minority group must be politically cohesive; and (3) the white majority must vote sufficiently as a bloc to usually defeat the minority's preferred candidates.

While Section 2 remains a vital tool, the VRA's enforcement mechanisms were significantly curtailed by *Shelby County v. Holder*, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), which invalidated Section 4(b)'s coverage formula, effectively rendering Section 5's preclearance requirement inoperable. This decision removed a key federal oversight mechanism, placing greater reliance on Section 2 litigation to challenge discriminatory voting practices. Alabama has a long history of contentious redistricting, with previous maps challenged for racial gerrymandering, underscoring the persistent struggle for fair representation in the state.

The procedural history of *Allen v. Milligan* has been complex and closely watched. In early 2022, a three-judge federal district court initially struck down Alabama's 2021 congressional map, finding that it likely violated Section 2 of the VRA by diluting Black voting strength. The court ordered the state to draw a new map with two districts where Black voters would have an opportunity to elect their preferred candidates. Alabama appealed this decision, and the Supreme Court initially stayed the district court's order, allowing the challenged map to be used in the 2022 elections.

However, in June 2023, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, affirmed the district court's preliminary injunction, concluding that the lower court had "faithfully applied our precedents and correctly determined that" Alabama's congressional map unlawfully discriminated against Black Alabamians. Following this affirmation, the Alabama legislature enacted a new map in July 2023, but this remedial plan was also rejected by the district court in September 2023. The court found that the new map still failed to create a second district where Black voters constituted a voting-age majority or "something quite close to it," as instructed. The district court then appointed a special master to draw remedial maps, and one such court-drawn map was used for the 2024 elections.

Crucially, after a full trial in February 2025, the federal court ruled in May 2025 that Alabama's 2023 congressional map not only violated Section 2 of the VRA but was also enacted with *racially discriminatory intent*. This finding of intentional discrimination added another layer to the state's legal woes. However, the landscape shifted dramatically with the Supreme Court's April 2026 decision in *Louisiana v. Callais*. In *Callais*, the Court significantly narrowed the framework for Section 2 claims, establishing new restrictions on the use of race in VRA lawsuits and requiring additional analysis to "disentangle" race and partisanship to prove a violation.

Just days after the *Callais* ruling, the Supreme Court vacated the district court's judgment in *Allen v. Milligan* and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of *Callais*. This remand, despite the lower court's finding of intentional discrimination, signals a potentially more difficult path for plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' current plea to the Supreme Court emphasizes the robust factual record supporting the lower court's findings, hoping to withstand the new scrutiny imposed by *Callais*. The challenge for the lower court on remand, and potentially for the Supreme Court again, will be to apply the new *Callais* standard while acknowledging the established evidence of racial vote dilution and discriminatory intent in Alabama's redistricting history. The state, meanwhile, continues to seek to implement its preferred map, even leading to a chaotic situation with special primaries being set in affected districts.

The ongoing litigation in *Allen v. Milligan* highlights the persistent challenges in achieving fair electoral representation for minority communities, particularly in states with histories of racial discrimination. The Supreme Court's ultimate decision on Alabama's congressional map, especially in light of the restrictive interpretation of Section 2 of the VRA introduced by *Louisiana v. Callais*, will have far-reaching consequences for voting rights jurisprudence and the practical ability of minority groups to challenge discriminatory redistricting.

For legal practitioners, this case underscores the increasing complexity of election law and civil rights litigation. Attorneys involved in redistricting challenges must now navigate the heightened evidentiary burden imposed by *Callais*, requiring sophisticated analysis to differentiate between racial and partisan motivations in map drawing. The emphasis on "disentangling" race and partisanship will demand meticulous factual development and expert testimony. Practitioners should closely monitor how lower courts interpret and apply *Callais* on remand in *Allen v. Milligan*, as these decisions will provide crucial guidance on the viability of future Section 2 claims. The battle for equitable representation continues, and the Supreme Court's final word on Alabama's map will be a defining moment for the future of the Voting Rights Act.