A coalition of voting rights groups marched across the historic Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, on 16 May 2026, as a federal court delivered a significant ruling. A panel of three judges blocked Alabama from using a new Republican-friendly congressional map in the upcoming midterm elections, citing intentional discrimination against Black voters.
Court Ruling on Discriminatory Intent
The decision prohibits Alabama from implementing a map passed by lawmakers in 2023 but never enacted, as the same court had previously found it was drawn with discriminatory intent. Alabama was later ordered to adopt a map with two majority-Black districts, both of which elected Democrats. After the US Supreme Court weakened a key provision of the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v Callais in April, Alabama moved its congressional primary and sought to use the 2023 map this year. The state is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Tuesday's ruling was notable because the judges determined that the Supreme Court's landmark decision on the Voting Rights Act did not permit Alabama to use the discriminatory map. The court stated, "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." It added, "We again cannot understand the 2023 Plan as anything other than intentionally discriminatory."
The panel comprised Judge Stanley Marcus (11th Circuit, appointed by Bill Clinton) and District Judges Anna Manasco and Terry Moorer (both appointed by Donald Trump).
Implications for Voting Rights Act
The case is likely to test the limits of the Supreme Court's ruling weakening the Voting Rights Act. In his majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito noted that maps drawn with discriminatory intent—a high bar to prove—could still be challenged. This Alabama case will be the first test of that principle.
To reach its decision, the court reviewed extensive records from a legal battle over Alabama's maps that began in 2021. That year, Black plaintiffs sued over the congressional map, arguing it diluted Black voting power. The panel agreed and ordered a new map. Lawmakers passed the 2023 plan, which the court found still diluted Black influence. A court-appointed special master ultimately drew a map with a second majority-Black district, upheld by the Supreme Court in 2023.
In Tuesday's decision, the panel revisited the legislature's actions: "When the Legislature enacted the 2023 Plan, it made a calculated, purposeful decision to refuse to provide the remedy for discriminatory vote dilution that our order (affirmed by the Supreme Court) required." The court noted that the legislature "well knew" the plan would dilute Black voters' opportunities and intentionally employed dilutive mechanisms.
Broader Context
The Alabama map redrawing was part of a Republican-led effort across the US South following the Callais decision, aiming to add Republican-friendly seats for the midterms. Tennessee implemented a new map eliminating a majority-Black district in Memphis. Louisiana is poised to remove a majority-Black district, and South Carolina may follow. These efforts drew widespread outcry from Black leaders and civil rights groups, who accused Republicans of resurrecting a discriminatory chapter in American history.
