A three-judge federal panel ruled Tuesday that Alabama must use a congressional map containing two Black-opportunity districts for the 2026 midterm elections, rejecting the state’s attempt to adopt a map that would likely produce a 6-1 Republican advantage.
In a decision issued May 26, 2026, the panel concluded that Alabama’s preferred map, which includes only one majority-Black district, remains tainted by intentional racial discrimination.
The judges stated they could not allow the state to use that map for the upcoming elections.
“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 wrote.
The case stems from the 2020 census and Alabama’s original congressional map, which featured just one district where Black voters comprise a majority. Black voters make up approximately 27% of the state’s voting-age population.
Challengers argued the map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting Black voting strength.
In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Allen v. Milligan that Alabama likely violated the Voting Rights Act and must create a second district offering Black voters an opportunity to elect their preferred candidate.
After the legislature passed a new map with only one such district, the same three-judge panel found that the map violated both the Voting Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment due to intentional racial discrimination.
Also Read: DOJ Charges Major Civil Rights Group in Explosive Fraud Case
The court ordered a remedial map with two Black-opportunity districts, which was used in the 2024 elections.
On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which significantly narrowed the application of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
The Court vacated the Alabama orders and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of the new standard, which requires clearer proof that race, rather than partisanship, drove the map-drawing process.
Alabama responded by attempting to reinstate its preferred map with one Black-majority district. Tuesday’s ruling blocks that effort for the 2026 cycle.
Current Status
The panel ordered the state to continue using the previously approved remedial map for 2026, citing the need to avoid election disruption. Alabama officials have stated they will appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Under the court-ordered map, Alabama’s seven congressional districts are generally expected to result in five Republican-leaning seats and two Democratic-leaning seats. The state’s preferred map would likely produce six Republican seats and one Democratic seat.
The decision provides Democrats a short-term advantage in the battle for House control in 2026, particularly as several Southern states have moved to adjust maps following the Callais ruling.
This article is based on the three-judge panel’s opinion, prior Supreme Court decisions in Allen v. Milligan and Louisiana v. Callais, and public statements from Alabama officials.
Also Read: Black Representation in Congress at Risk After U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on Voting Rights Act
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits voting practices or election maps that discriminate on the basis of race. In redistricting cases, plaintiffs often argue that district boundaries weaken the voting power of minority groups by spreading voters across multiple districts or concentrating them into one district.
Courts evaluating Section 2 claims typically examine whether minority voters are sufficiently large and geographically compact to form a majority in an additional district, whether they vote cohesively, and whether white voters typically vote as a bloc to defeat minority-preferred candidates.
Comparison With Louisiana v. Callais
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais narrowed how courts apply Section 2 in redistricting disputes. The decision placed greater emphasis on proving that race, rather than political considerations such as partisan advantage, was the primary reason for drawing district lines.
In Alabama’s case, the three-judge panel said the state’s map still reflected intentional racial discrimination even under the stricter standard announced in Callais.
Unlike the Louisiana case, the Alabama panel pointed to earlier findings that lawmakers knowingly rejected maps creating a second Black-opportunity district despite court warnings.
