Attorney General Steve Marshall Applauds Supreme Court's Landmark Redistricting Ruling

April 29, 2026 - MONTGOMERY, Ala. - Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall on Thursday praised the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Louisiana v. Callais, calling the ruling a "watershed moment" in the decades‑long national debate over the role of race in redistricting.

The Court held that neither Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act nor the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments require-or permit-states to use race as a factor when drawing voting districts. According to the opinion, states must rely on race‑neutral criteria and may not be compelled to create additional minority‑majority districts or to intentionally dilute minority voting strength.

"The Supreme Court has spoken. States cannot be forced to gerrymander by race," Marshall said in a statement. He argued that the ruling validates Alabama's long‑held position that race should not be used "either to help or to harm particular voters" when crafting congressional maps. Marshall added that the Court's decision recognizes "extraordinary progress" in the South and signals that laws designed for a different era "do not reflect the present reality."

Background of the Louisiana Case

The decision stems from two conflicting federal court rulings over Louisiana's post‑2020 congressional map. In 2022, one federal judge found that the map likely violated Section 2 because it did not include an additional majority‑Black district. When the state responded by drawing such a district, a separate federal court ruled that the revised map violated the Equal Protection Clause because race was intentionally used to shape it.

The Supreme Court resolved the dispute by determining that plaintiffs had not shown Louisiana's original map violated the Voting Rights Act. The Court found that the state relied on race‑neutral considerations-including partisan goals such as protecting incumbents-when drawing its districts. The opinion emphasized that Section 2 imposes liability "only when the circumstances give rise to a strong inference that intentional discrimination" occurred, and that plaintiffs bear the burden of separating racial considerations from other legislative motives.

Implications for Alabama

Alabama has been engaged in its own high‑profile redistricting battle since the 2020 cycle. A federal court ruled that the state's congressional map violated Section 2 by failing to include a second majority‑Black district and ordered Alabama to use a court‑drawn map for the 2024 elections. The state sought Supreme Court review, and those applications remain pending.

Marshall said Alabama will "act as quickly as possible" to apply the new ruling to its ongoing litigation and ensure that future maps "reflect the will of the people, not a racial quota system the Constitution forbids."

In September, Marshall filed a brief supporting Louisiana's original map, arguing that the Voting Rights Act does not require states to prioritize race in redistricting.

The Supreme Court's full opinion is publicly available.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-109_21o3.pdf

Steve Marshall is a candidate for U.S. Senate. The Republican primary is on May 19.