In an unsigned per curiam order Tuesday, the Supreme Court granted Alabama’s request for a stay, permitting the state to use its 2023 congressional redistricting map for the 2026 midterm elections. 

The decision halts a federal district court’s injunction that had blocked the map, citing violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the 14th Amendment due to alleged intentional dilution of Black voting strength.

The ruling follows the Court’s April 2026 decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which tightened standards for VRA claims by requiring plaintiffs’ alternative maps to match the state’s legitimate districting criteria equally well and by demanding analysis of racially polarized voting that controls for partisanship. Alabama’s 2023 map maintains one majority-Black district in a state where Black residents make up about 27% of the population.

Liberal justices and Democratic figures reacted with sharp criticism, framing the decision as a setback for minority voting rights and an endorsement of maps they describe as discriminatory. 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, issued a pointed dissent. 

Sotomayor wrote: “Before the Court are two paths. Down one lies an orderly election. ... Down the other lies a chaotic election, held under a never-before-used congressional map that intentionally discriminates against Black Alabamians.” 

The President Barack Obama-appointed justice also wrote that the high-court's conservative majority “chooses the second path and disregards both democratic values and the rule of law.”

Democrat Rep. Terri Sewell, Alabama’s only Democratic member of Congress, condemned the ruling strongly. 

In a public statement, she called it a decision allowing Alabama to use its “racist congressional map” for the midterms, expressing frustration over the reversal of prior efforts to create additional majority-minority districts.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder also weighed in, issuing a statement criticizing the Supreme Court’s handling of the Alabama map, calling it an “unconscionable, factually deficient decision.” 

The court majority emphasized respect for legislative good faith, the need for plaintiffs to satisfy strict Gingles preconditions under the updated Callais framework, and the preference against last-minute election changes by federal courts. Alabama officials welcomed the stay as affirming state authority over redistricting without racial quotas.

The case highlights ongoing debates over race-conscious districting, federal judicial intervention in elections and the balance between preventing dilution and avoiding racial gerrymandering. 

Further appeals could refine these standards, but for 2026, Alabama proceeds under the 2023 map amid vocal liberal discontent.