US Supreme Court Lifts Blockade on Alabama Congressional Map

The lower federal courts sided with the plaintiffs. The three-judge panel unanimously decided that the plan, which features only one district with a Black majority, was, in its words, "tainted by intentional race-based discrimination." At the same time, the court instructed the state to draw a map with two districts where Black voters would have a realistic chance of electing their candidates. The Supreme Court had subsequently repeatedly urged Alabama to submit a compliant map.

From Federal Court to the Supreme Court

However, Alabama refused and instead appealed to the Supreme Court to defend the old map. The state argued that the maps were drawn for partisan, not racial, reasons, in order to send more Republicans to Congress. With its April 2026 decision that states may not intentionally draw districts as majority-minority districts, the Supreme Court had already weakened key protections of the Voting Rights Act. Based on this precedent, Alabama requested the reinstatement of the old map.

In May, the Supreme Court issued an unsigned and unexplained order allowing Alabama to use the old map for the upcoming midterm elections. At that point, however, the first absentee ballots had already begun to be cast under the replacement map drawn by the courts, forcing Republican Governor Kay Ivey to cancel the elections and schedule a special election in August.

Subsequently, the three-judge panel, composed of three judges appointed by Republicans—two of whom were appointed by Donald Trump—confirmed with another unanimous decision that the plan with only one Black-majority district was intentionally discriminatory. Alabama then turned to the Supreme Court again, which has now lifted the injunction and simultaneously instructed the lower court to continue examining the matter in light of its April voting rights decision.

Political Consequences for the Midterms

The three liberal justices on the court publicly dissented. They argued that the conservative majority had disregarded the principles of the 2006 decision in Purcell v. Gonzalez, which states that courts should not change election rules shortly before an election. Since absentee ballots had already been cast under the replacement map at the time of the decision, they argued, the move violated this self-imposed restraint.

The political implications are significant. With the reinstated map, Alabama is expected to have six Republican and one Democratic district in the midterms on November 3, 2026. Democratic Representative Shomari Figures, who represents Alabama's second district, is likely to lose his seat, according to observers.

The decision is part of a series of rulings that could influence the outcome of the midterm elections in favor of the Republicans. The conservatives hold only a narrow majority in the House of Representatives. If they lose this majority in either chamber of Congress, Donald Trump would have great difficulty pushing through major legislative initiatives in the second half of his term.

Redistricting as a Nationwide Battle

The dispute is part of a nationwide struggle over electoral district boundaries. Courts in Texas, Florida, Oklahoma, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Ohio are currently dealing with similar cases where electoral districts have been redrawn or corresponding plans exist. Democrats are trying to redraw their own districts in California and Virginia to benefit their party, but are generally in a weaker position.

Critics argue that the redistricting in Alabama disadvantages Black voters, who overwhelmingly support the Democrats. So-called gerrymandering, the deliberate drawing of electoral district boundaries to shift the partisan balance, has been practiced by both major US parties for decades.

Significance of the Voting Rights Act

The injunction that has now been lifted was issued at the end of May 2026 by a federal court in Alabama, after it had deemed the state's plans an attempt to distribute Black voters across multiple districts and thus dilute their voting power.

The Voting Rights Act, passed by Congress in the 1960s as a central achievement of the civil rights movement, was intended to prevent districts with large Black and other minority populations from being redrawn in a way that dilutes their representation. The Supreme Court's April 2026 decision has undermined essential protective mechanisms of this law.

Outlook for the Congressional Elections in November

With its decision, the Supreme Court grants the Republican Party an advantage in the campaign for narrow majorities in Congress. Observers view the ruling as further evidence that redistricting disputes have intensified since Donald Trump's return to the White House and that each individual seat in both chambers will determine control of Congress in the future.

The midterms on November 3, 2026, in which part of the Senate and the entire House of Representatives will be re-elected, are considered an important barometer of public opinion for Trump's second term. Should the Democrats succeed in winning a majority in at least one chamber, the government's ability to act would be significantly restricted.