NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Justice Clarence Thomas declined to immediately hand Alabama Republicans a win Wednesday, but ordered their voting rights challengers to quickly defend a court-drawn congressional map that helped Democrats flip a deep-red state House seat.
Alabama’s Republican Attorney General requested emergency relief, asking the Supreme Court to immediately revive the state’s 2023 legislature-drawn congressional map after a lower court blocked it, ruling that the state must continue using a special-master map approved by the courts that created a second Black-opportunity district and helped elect Democratic Rep. Shomari Figures in 2024.
On Wednesday, Justice Thomas, who is assigned to the 11th circuit, declined to immediately restore the 2023 congressional map but also ordered the case’s voting rights plaintiffs to provide an explanation by Monday on why that legislature-drawn map should not be used.
Thomas’s ruling is the latest in a years-long redistricting saga that was given new life following an April Supreme Court ruling that narrowed the interpretation of a provision in the Voting Rights Act used by Democrats in their redistricting fights. Prior to the April ruling, the Supreme Court upheld a challenge to the state’s 2020 census-drawn map and a court-approved special-master map preferred by Democrats was implemented, which reshaped the state’s 2nd District and flipped a solidly GOP-held seat that gave Democrats another House seat.
CNN COMMENTATOR SNAPS AT KEVIN O’LEARY TO NOT ‘BE A D—‘ DURING HEATED DEBATE OVER SUPREME COURT RULING
Supreme Court Justice wrote a blistering dissent on Feb. 20, 2026 after the Supreme Court found President Trump’s tariffs are illegal. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
In its emergency application, Alabama argued an immediate stay was needed because the lower-court ruling “defies Callais, manipulates the Purcell principle, and offends the Constitution’s promise of equal protection for all.”
Alabama is leaning on the Supreme Court’s recent April ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, which gave Republicans a new weapon against maps from left-wing voting rights activists by making it harder for them to force additional primarily minority districts under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
The decision from the Supreme Court ultimately fueled a wave of fresh redistricting efforts in GOP-led states, including Alabama, which used the Supreme Court’s new Louisiana v. Callais ruling to ask the justices to revisit the lower-court orders blocking the 2023 legislature-drawn map.
JACKSON PROTESTS AS SUPREME COURT USES LOUISIANA GERRYMANDERING RULING TO INSTRUCT LOWER COURTS
In response to the Louisiana case’s ruling, the Supreme Court ruled earlier this month on May 11 that the lower court’s judgment blocking Alabama’s 2023 map should be vacated and sent back for another look. However, on Tuesday, the three-judge federal district court blocked the 2023 map and ordered the court-approved special master map to continue to be used, leading to Alabama’s request for emergency relief on Wednesday that was ruled on by Justice Thomas.
The Alabama State Capitol sits beneath a blue sky in Montgomery, Alabama. (Joe Sohm/Visions of America/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)
The timing of Thomas’ order comes as Alabama officials have already tried to prepare for a rapid switch back to the 2023 map.
After the Supreme Court’s earlier May 11 order sent the case back to the lower court, Gov. Kay Ivey called Aug. 11 special primaries for the affected 1st, 2nd, 6th and 7th Congressional Districts, saying the state was ready to move forward with its Alabama legislature-drawn map.
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey participates in the homecoming ceremonies at halftime of the game between South Alabama Jaguars and Auburn Tigers at Jordan-Hare Stadium on September 13, 2025 in Auburn, Alabama. (Stew Milne/Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Fox News Digital reached out to Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall and the American Civil Liberties Union, which is acting as counsel for the left-wing voting rights plaintiffs in the case, but did not receive a response from either parties in time for publication.
