Alabama Joins Multi-State Effort Urging Supreme Court to Uphold Texas Congressional Map

November 26, 2025 - MONTGOMERY - Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, in concert with Missouri and attorneys general from 20 other states, has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to stay a federal district court ruling that temporarily blocked the use of Texas's congressional map. The lower court's decision ordered Texas to implement a different map, one that would likely benefit the plaintiffs' preferred political party by reassigning multiple congressional seats.

The coalition of states contends that the district court disregarded established Supreme Court precedent and improperly involved the federal judiciary in what is fundamentally a political process reserved for state legislatures. Last year's Supreme Court decision in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP clarified that plaintiffs alleging racial gerrymandering must present an alternative map, demonstrating that it is possible to draw different districts without changing the state's political objectives. This safeguard is intended to prevent partisan actors from disguising political disputes as claims of racial discrimination.

In the Texas case, the plaintiffs did not submit any alternative map as required. Instead, they sought to reinstate a previous map that would favor their political party, regardless of the state legislature's established goals. The district court allowed this request, prompting Texas to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Attorney General Marshall emphasized the importance of the Supreme Court's alternative-map requirement, stating, "Increasingly, political operatives are taking legal protections designed to prohibit racial discrimination and cynically using them to advance purely partisan ends. That is why the Supreme Court's alternative-map requirement is so important: to see if plaintiffs can show that the legislature enacted its map because of race-which the Constitution prohibits-or because of its own legitimate political goals."

The multi-state brief argues that permitting federal courts to reject state-drawn maps without applying the standards set forth in Alexander would open the floodgates to coordinated litigation efforts aimed at redrawing congressional districts through the courts, rather than through the democratic process.

Alongside Alabama and Missouri, the filing was joined by attorneys general from Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia.

(Montgomery, Ala) – Alabama Attorney General joined Missouri and 20 other states in asking the U.S. Supreme Court to stay a federal district court ruling that preliminarily enjoined use of Texas's congressional map and ordered the state to use a map that would likely reassign multiple seats to the plaintiffs' preferred political party. The state coalition argues that the lower court ignored controlling Supreme Court precedent and inserted the federal judiciary into a political process reserved for elected state legislatures.

Last year, the Supreme Court held in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP that plaintiffs alleging racial gerrymandering must provide an alternative map demonstrating that a state could draw different districts without altering its political goals. This requirement prevents political groups from disguising partisan disputes as racial discrimination claims.

In the Texas case, however, the plaintiffs did not submit any alternative map. Instead, they asked the court to reinstate a prior map that would advantage their political party while failing to meet the goals of the state legislature. The district court granted the request, and Texas appealed to the Supreme Court.

"Increasingly, political operatives are taking legal protections designed to prohibit racial discrimination and cynically using them to advance purely partisan ends," said Attorney General Marshall. "That is why the Supreme Court's alternative-map requirement is so important: to see if plaintiffs can show that the legislature enacted its map because of race-which the Constitution prohibits-or because of its own legitimate political goals."

The brief argues that allowing federal courts to discard state-drawn maps without applying the Alexander standard would open the door to nationwide litigation efforts aimed at reshaping congressional districts through the courts rather than through the democratic process.

In addition to Attorney General Marshall, attorneys general from the following states joined the Missouri-led filing: Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia.