WASHINGTON, D.C. — Alabama asked the Supreme Court on May 27, 2026, to pause a lower court ruling that prohibits the state from using its 2023 congressional map in the 2026 elections. The federal panel had found the map to be an intentional effort to dilute Black Alabamians’ voting strength and ordered the state to use a court-drawn alternative created by a special master.

The state’s solicitor general, A. Barrett Bowdre, argued that without the 2023 map, “voters will be forced to vote under a court-drawn racially gerrymandered map that does not meet Alabama’s legitimate districting goals.” Alabama contended that the Supreme Court’s April 29, 2026, ruling in Louisiana v. Callais “vindicates Alabama’s position on the lawfulness of the 2023 Plan, yet the district court decided in one week that Callais changed nothing.”

Plaintiffs challenging the map urged the Court to uphold the lower ruling. One group stated the lower court “made findings on a full record that remains the definitive account of Alabama’s racial geography, racialized politics, and racially discriminatory policymaking.” The Milligan challengers, including the Alabama Conference of the NAACP, emphasized that the lower court’s order rests on an independent finding of intentional race discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment, adding that Callais addressed racial gerrymandering “but said nothing about the analytically distinct claim of intentional race discrimination here.”

Challengers argued it is too late for the Supreme Court to intervene because “reassigning voters for a special primary election on August 11, 2026, is administratively impossible at this point.” The Caster challengers, made up of voters from three different congressional districts, stated that “mere hours remain until Alabama’s statewide voter registration records must be cemented in place for the 2026 elections.”

Supporting Alabama, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer contended the district court’s order came too late and wrongly treated the state’s failure to draw a second Black opportunity district as proof of intentional discrimination, “notwithstanding the obvious alternative explanations for Alabama’s actions: helping Republicans and protecting the Gulf Coast community of interest.” Sauer added that “state legislatures are democratically elected bodies that are competent to make the policy judgments inherent in late election changes and are accountable to the voters for any ill effects. Federal district courts do not have the same license to interfere with election rules at the eleventh hour, particularly on such dubious merits theories.”

Justice Clarence Thomas directed challengers to respond by 4 p.m. on June 1, 2026. Alabama had asked the Court to rule by 10 a.m. that day. The case stems from litigation that began in 2021, following a 2023 Supreme Court decision that upheld a prior ruling finding Alabama’s 2021 map likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.