The Court's Decision: A Judicial Intervention in Redistricting

On August 7, 2025, a three-judge panel from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama unanimously ruled that the state must continue using a congressional map created by a court-appointed special master. This map, implemented for the 2024 elections, includes two racially gerrymandered districts where Black voters get to decide there congressional representation -an outcome the court claimed was necessary under the 60-year-old Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The panel-comprising Judges Stanley Marcus, Anna Manasco, and Terry Moorer-found that Alabama's 2023 map diluted Black voting power by maintaining only one majority-Black district, despite the state's Black population comprising roughly 27% of residents.

Background: A History of Defiance and Legal Battles

Alabama's redistricting saga began after the 2020 Census, when the Republican-controlled legislature drew a map that concentrated Black voters into a single district. Civil rights groups, including the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, filed suit, arguing that the map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a lower court's finding that the map was discriminatory. Yet Alabama lawmakers responded by passing a revised map that still failed to create a second majority-Black district. The federal panel viewed this move as a deliberate act of defiance, with Judge Marcus describing the state's actions as "deeply disturbing" and "strategic attempts to evade court orders".

Steve Marshall's Response: A Defiant Defense of states' rights and the Alabama Legislature

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall issued a strongly worded statement condemning the court's decision and defending the legislature's actions. He argued that the court-imposed map prioritizes race over community interests and constitutional principles:

"No Alabamian-Black, white, Republican, or Democrat-can look at the court-drawn maps that will soon be imposed on us and see anything other than the prioritization of race above all else," Marshall said. "Our communities, local economies, and basic geography will be cast aside in the radical pursuit of racial quotas."

Marshall further criticized the judiciary's role in the redistricting process, stating:

"There should be nothing more offensive to the people of our great state than to be sidelined in 2023 by a view of Alabama that is stuck in 1963. This racial agenda is pressed by left-wing activists, not just in Alabama, but in any Republican state where it might advantage Democrats."

Despite the court's injunction, Marshall vowed to continue defending the 2023 map:

The Impact: Historic Gains and Political Shifts

The court-drawn map used in the 2024 elections led to a historic outcome: the election of Rep. Shomari Figures (D-Mobile) in the newly redrawn 2nd Congressional District. For the first time, Alabama sent two Black representatives to Congress simultaneously. This shift also gave Democrats a second seat in Alabama's seven-member congressional delegation, altering the state's political dynamics and potentially influencing national redistricting debates. The move meant that the White minority in the Seventh Congressional District (about 48% of voters there) and the White voters in the Second Congressional District (nearly 50% of the voters there) effectively have no say in who represents them. The state argues that a more equitable solution would have been to create one majority Black district where Blacks comprise 62% or more of the voters - thereby not disenfranchising almost half of the voters in both CD7 and CD2 to produce an outcome where two Black congress Democratic members is preordained by federal court interference in Alabama's elections.

Congressional redistricting map imposed on the state by the federal court. This is the map that is currently in place and just used for the first time in 2024.

No Preclearance, But Continued Oversight

Plaintiffs had requested that Alabama be placed under federal "preclearance," a process requiring court approval for future redistricting changes-a mechanism that was declared obsolete by the Supreme Court's 2013 landmark decision in Shelby County v. Holder. While the panel declined to reinstate preclearance, it emphasized that the current remedy sufficiently addresses the state's violations and ensures fair representation through 2030.

Attorney Deuel Ross of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund expressed mixed feelings: "Disappointed that the court did not impose preclearance, but grateful for the ruling that will keep in place a fair remedy through 2030," he said, calling the decision "a hard-fought win".

What Comes Next: Appeals and National Implications

Marshall's office has indicated plans to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, potentially setting the stage for a third high court review of the state's redistricting efforts. The deadline for Alabama's brief is September 4, with the plaintiffs' response due a month later.

Meanwhile, the ruling has national resonance. As states like Texas pursue aggressive mid-cycle redistricting to bolster partisan control, Alabama's case stands as a judicial counterweight arguing that the federal courts and not state legislatures have ultimate authority over redistricting and are able to racially gerrymander a state however the court wills.

Conclusion: The decision is another blow for states' rights

The federal court's decision to block Alabama's 2023 redistricting map and implement their own redistricting plan is a legal defeat for states' rights. The states and not the federal government are tasked by the Constitution with drawing their own congressional districts. The state argues that the 1965 Voting Rights Act is largely unconstitutional. The Court has already found that the preclearance section of the bill to be obsolescent and has struck that down. The NAACP and their allies argue that Alabama only having one majority Black congressional district is an attempt by the state legislature to minimize the influence of minority voters and minimize their 14th Amendment voting rights. They argue that the state has a deep history of racial discrimination in voting and that continued federal interference in Alabama elections is therefore justified.

As Alabama prepares for another potential Supreme Court showdown, the stakes remain high-not just for the state's rights to draw its own district lines, but for the future of redistricting nationwide.

(A.I. contributed to this report._