Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall has filed emergency petitions at the Supreme Court asking the justices to lift a lower-court injunction that forced the state to redraw its congressional map, a move that could reshape the national redistricting landscape ahead of the 2026 midterms.
Marshall's challenge leans on the Supreme Court's late-April ruling in the Louisiana redistricting case known as Callais, which struck down that state's congressional map after finding that race had improperly predominated in the drawing of district lines. Alabama now argues the same legal reasoning should free it from a prior court order that required the creation of a second district where Black voters hold a meaningful opportunity to elect their preferred candidate.
The stakes extend well beyond Alabama. If the Supreme Court sides with Marshall, the decision could hand Republicans a stronger footing in congressional redistricting across multiple states, and deal a serious setback to Democrats' strategy for recapturing House seats.
The roots of this fight trace back to the Supreme Court's earlier ruling in Allen v. Milligan, which invalidated Alabama's original redistricting plan. That decision forced state lawmakers to draw a second district favorable to Democratic candidates, a result that cost Republicans a seat they had previously held.
Marshall told Fox News Digital he was "thrilled" when the Court ruled in Callais at the end of April, because it gave Alabama a framework to defend its maps on constitutional grounds.
"Now they have a framework for Alabama to directly defend what the legislature did both in 2021 and 2023. And that is, drawing maps based on historical redistricting principles that now I think Callais makes clear were constitutional exercises of that authority."
The Callais ruling struck down Louisiana's congressional map, including districts centered on New Orleans and a narrow majority-minority corridor stretching from Baton Rouge. The Court's analysis held that race should not predominate when drawing congressional districts, a principle Marshall now wants applied to Alabama's situation.
But Alabama faces a procedural wrinkle Louisiana did not. Unlike Louisiana, which received direct relief through the Callais decision, Alabama must first get a three-judge panel to remove the injunction against its prior map before the state can either revert to that map or give the legislature authority to draw a new one.
Marshall laid out the distinction plainly:
"And then unlike Louisiana, which was able to get direct relief through that decision, we now have to be removed from the injunction [against Alabama's prior map] by the three-judge panel in order to either go back to the map that is being challenged or give the legislature the authority to draw a new map."
The Washington Examiner reported that Alabama officials filed three emergency petitions asking the Supreme Court to let the state's 2023 congressional map take effect before the 2026 election cycle. One of the petitions stated bluntly: "Alabama's case mirrors Louisiana's, and they should end the same way: with this year's elections run with districts based on lawful policy goals, not race."
Marshall framed the request in similar terms. "Because the lower court's injunction cannot stand in light of the Supreme Court's ruling, we have asked the court to lift the injunction," he said. "Alabama deserves the right to use its own maps, just like every other state."
The timeline is tight. Alabama's May 19 primary is approaching, and state lawmakers were in special session through Friday to address the legislative side of the redistricting fight. Secretary of State Wes Allen indicated the primary will proceed as expected regardless of the Supreme Court's timeline.
Marshall said his office is "singularly focused" on the legal front, securing relief from the 2023 injunction as quickly as possible, while watching what the legislature does in its special session.
Alabama is not acting alone. Southern GOP legislatures have moved to redraw congressional maps after the Callais ruling, with Republican-led states including Louisiana, Florida, and Tennessee positioning themselves to capitalize on the decision. The potential Republican gains in the House could be significant heading into the 2026 cycle.
Marshall's office is also fighting on a second front. He told Fox News Digital that a state Senate district map was likewise subject to redrawing based on a Voting Rights Act Section 2 challenge, and his office is pursuing that case in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
"And the other thing, not only are we working on the state congressional map, but it's also, we have a state Senate district [map] likewise that was subject to redrawing based upon a [Voting Rights Act] Section 2 challenge."
The dual-track approach, Supreme Court on the congressional map, 11th Circuit on the state Senate map, signals that Marshall views the post-Callais legal environment as favorable enough to press on multiple fronts simultaneously.
Even so, the broader political math for Republicans in the House remains contested, and how far the Callais precedent reaches will depend on the Court's willingness to apply its reasoning beyond Louisiana.
Marshall did not limit his argument to Alabama's borders. He took direct aim at what he called a double standard in how redistricting rules are applied across the country. He pointed to New England, where Democrats hold every congressional seat despite substantial Republican voter blocs.
"[They're] arguing for proportional representation, which is basically what they are saying, they make that same argument in Maine, in Rhode Island, in New Hampshire, where you don't see a single congressional member there from the Republican Party."
The numbers back up his point. Maine has an estimated Republican bloc of about 30 percent. Vermont saw roughly the same share of votes go to President Donald Trump in 2024. Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts all have between 10 and 40 percent Republican vote share, with more than 40 percent of their residents registered as unaffiliated or similar. Yet none of those states face the kind of court-ordered redistricting pressure that Alabama has endured.
Marshall also referenced Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence in the Milligan case, which he said signaled the Court's awareness that the legal framework needs to evolve with changing circumstances.
"You saw some of that sentiment from Justice Kavanaugh in a concurrence in the [Milligan] case that Alabama had there a few years ago, saying there's a point in time in which we have to acknowledge that circumstances have changed."
Marshall drew a sharp contrast between the Alabama of the 1960s and the Alabama of the 2020s, arguing that the state should not remain locked under legal frameworks designed for a different era.
The redistricting tide appears to be turning beyond the Deep South. The Supreme Court of Virginia recently struck down a Democratic-led redistricting map in that state, a ruling that ended Democrats' bid for a lopsided congressional edge. Marshall commented on Virginia's map as well, calling it "clearly [done] for hyper-political reasons that kept none of the traditional principles in mind."
That Virginia ruling landed after Marshall spoke to Fox News Digital, adding another data point to a pattern: courts are increasingly skeptical of maps drawn with race or partisan advantage as the dominant factor, regardless of which party drew them.
Democrats, for their part, have not been quiet. New Jersey Senator Cory Booker descended on Alabama to push back against the redistricting effort, appearing at a counter-redistricting forum in Birmingham alongside Mayor Randall Woodfin and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Doug Jones. Fox News Digital reached out to Booker earlier this week but did not receive a response.
The involvement of an out-of-state senator in Alabama's redistricting debate underscores the national stakes. Democrats recognize that losing court-ordered favorable maps in Alabama and other states could erode their path to a House majority. Republicans see the same math, and are pressing the advantage.
Marshall, who is running to succeed retiring Senator Tommy Tuberville this fall, has positioned himself at the center of what may become the most consequential redistricting fight of the decade. His office filed the Supreme Court challenge, is litigating the state Senate map in the 11th Circuit, and is coordinating, though he says operating separately from, state lawmakers in their special session.
The open questions are significant. The Supreme Court has not yet acted on Alabama's emergency petitions. The three-judge panel that entered the original injunction has not signaled how it will respond. And the precise map Alabama would use if the injunction is lifted remains unclear, whether it would be the challenged 2021 map, the 2023 redraw, or something new from the legislature.
What is clear is that the legal ground has shifted. The Callais ruling gave states like Alabama a constitutional argument they did not have before: that maps drawn on traditional redistricting principles, not racial quotas, are lawful exercises of legislative authority. Virginia's court reached a similar conclusion when it voided Democrat-drawn maps in that state.
Marshall said it plainly: "I will continue to fight for Alabama to be able to use the congressional map the people's elected representatives enacted."
If the Supreme Court agrees, the map of American politics could look very different by 2026. And the people who drew the lines will be the ones voters actually chose, not unelected judges.
