Allen v. Milligan
Decision
The Supreme Court paused a lower court order that had blocked Alabama from using its 2023 congressional map, allowing the state’s preferred lines to proceed for the 2026 elections.
The Supreme Court issued a stay that clears the way for Alabama to use its 2023 redistricting plan in upcoming elections. This stops a lower court decision that had required a different map with a second district where Black voters could elect their preferred candidates.
Plain-English summary generated by AI from the Court's published opinion on June 19, 2026. Always read the official opinion for the controlling text.
Key Takeaways
- 01The Supreme Court stayed an injunction that blocked Alabama's 2023 congressional map.
- 02Plaintiffs must show that an alternative map meets all state goals, including political ones, 'just as well' as the state's plan.
- 03Courts must presume that state legislatures act in good faith when passing redistricting laws.
Inside the Court
6–3
Decision
- Opinion by
- Per Curiam
- Dissent
- SotomayorKaganJackson
Why It Matters
The ruling suggests that under new legal standards, states have more flexibility to prioritize their own districting goals—like keeping specific communities together—over creating additional minority-opportunity districts.
Who Is Affected?
Black Alabamians
They will vote in a map with one majority-Black district rather than a court-ordered plan with two opportunity districts.
Alabama State Legislators
The ruling affirms their authority to set districting criteria like protecting incumbents and keeping certain communities together.
Election Officials
They must administer the 2026 elections using the state's 2023 boundaries rather than the court-drawn remedial map.
What Happened?
Alabama created a new congressional map in 2023 after a previous version was found to violate the Voting Rights Act. A federal district court blocked this new map too, finding it failed to create a second 'opportunity district' for Black voters and was designed with discriminatory intent. The district court ordered a court-drawn map to be used instead to ensure fairness. Alabama state officials asked the Supreme Court to intervene, arguing the state's map was lawful and that changing maps so close to an election would cause chaos.
Legal Question
Should the state's 2023 redistricting plan be stayed because it likely complies with updated Voting Rights Act standards and avoids last-minute election interference?
Why the Court Ruled This Way
In a per curiam opinion, the Court granted the stay, finding Alabama is likely to succeed on the merits. Reasoning from the recently decided Callais case, the Court explained that for a Voting Rights Act challenge to succeed, a plaintiff's alternative map must meet all of a state’s legitimate goals—such as protecting incumbents or keeping the Gulf Coast together—'just as well' as the state's map. The Court also noted that lower courts failed to apply a 'presumption of good faith' to the legislature and improperly relied on partisan voting patterns to prove racial discrimination. Finally, the Court emphasized the 'Purcell principle,' which warns federal courts against changing election rules shortly before an election to avoid voter confusion.
Arguments in Favor
The state's districting decisions deserve a presumption of good faith, and those lines must stand unless an alternative map can achieve the state's specific policy goals equally well. Furthermore, courts should not intervene so close to an election because states have a critical interest in maintaining stability and avoiding the administrative chaos of last-minute map changes.
Arguments Against
Allowing the 2023 map rewards the state for defying prior court orders and entrenches a system that dilutes the voting power of Black Alabamians. Ignoring evidence of discriminatory intent and the state's own sudden changes to its redistricting rules undermines the rule of law and the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Timeline
2021
Alabama adopts its first congressional map following the 2020 census.
2023
The Supreme Court affirms that Alabama's original map violated the Voting Rights Act.
2023
Alabama enacts a new redistricting plan that many argue still fails to fix the violation.
2025
The District Court finds the 2023 map unconstitutional and orders a remedial map.
May 26, 2026
The District Court enters a second preliminary injunction against the state map.
June 2, 2026
The Supreme Court stays the lower court's injunction, allowing the state's map to proceed.
What This Means for Everyday Americans
For many Alabamians, this means the congressional district they vote in will remain what the state legislature decided in 2023, rather than the one a court recently tried to put in place. This prevents a sudden change in polling places or candidates just before the election, which the Court believes helps keep elections orderly. However, for voters who believe the current lines are unfair, it means they will likely cast their ballots in districts that a lower court found were designed to limit their political influence. In the long run, this makes it much harder to change map lines through lawsuits if the state claims the lines were drawn to keep certain local communities together.
What Happens Next?
The case now heads toward a full appeal in the Supreme Court. While the litigation continues, Alabama will move forward with its 2026 congressional elections using the 2023 Redistricting Plan.
Explain It Like I'm 12
Alabama made a map for elections that a lower court said was unfair to Black voters. The lower court wanted to use a different map to make things fair, but the Supreme Court stepped in and said 'stop.' The Supreme Court says that when a state makes a map, they have the right to follow their own goals, like keeping certain neighborhoods together or helping current leaders stay in office. They also said it's too close to the 2026 election to change everything now, because that might confuse people. So, for now, Alabama will use the map the state leaders picked instead of the one the court thought was fairer.
Broader Context
This decision reinforces the high bar set in Louisiana v. Callais, making it significantly harder for plaintiffs to win vote-dilution claims by requiring them to perfectly match a state's non-racial districting objectives. It also highlights the Court's increasing reluctance to allow lower courts to change election procedures as an election date approaches.
Key Players
Wes Allen
The Alabama Secretary of State who requested the stay to use the state-enacted map.
Evan Milligan
Lead plaintiff representing Black voters who challenged the map for diluting their voting strength.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
The three-judge panel that twice found Alabama's maps violated federal law.