The panel had been ordered to review its decision on the map after a recent SCOTUS ruling gutted the Voting Rights Act.
Alabama is likely to appeal the ruling, which stops an effort to use a new congressional map that would likely cost Democrats a majority-Black district.
A federal three-judge panel has once again blocked Alabama from using its 2023 congressional map, ordering the state to use a race-blind court-drawn plan for its 2026 elections — and pulling no punches about why.In a 102-page ruling filed Tuesday, Judges Stanley Marcus, Anna Manasco, and Terry Moorer found that the Alabama Legislature "doubled down on racially discriminatory vote dilution" when it passed its 2023 redistricting plan — and did so deliberately."We again cannot understand the 2023 Plan as anything other than intentionally discriminatory," the judges wrote.The court ordered Secretary of State Wes Allen to administer Alabama's remaining 2026 congressional elections — including August special primaries — using the "Special Master Plan," a race-blind map previously imposed by the court that created a second district where Black voters have an opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice.The ruling comes after the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the court's earlier permanent injunction and ordered the panel to reconsider in light of Louisiana v. Callais, an April 2026 decision that raised the bar for Voting Rights Act claims. The three-judge panel concluded that Alabama still loses under the new standard — both on constitutional and statutory grounds.The judges found zero evidence that the legislature acted for partisan reasons and rejected the state's attempt to use Callais as a shield. "Alabama cannot use Callais to legitimize its pre-Callais decision to double down on the discriminatory vote dilution that we and the Supreme Court found," they wrote.The court also cited the chaos that would result from forcing a map switch now. Alabama's elections director testified it would take a "Herculean effort" to redistrict voters in just seven days — a process that normally takes months.Senate Minority Leader Bobby Singleton, a Greensboro Democrat and plaintiff in the case, had warned the legislature it was on the wrong side of the law. "We're definitely going to be filing actions in the state constitution," Singleton said after the legislature passed its special primary election law last month.The court denied a stay, but Alabama was expected to appeal immediately to the Supreme Court.
The South Carolina Senate has rejected President Trump's push to redraw the state's congressional districts in hopes Republicans could gain an extra seat.
A panel of federal judges blocked Alabama from using a GOP-drawn congressional map that would eliminate one of the state’s majority-Black districts. NBC News’ Gary Grumbach reports on how the case could soon be decided by the Supreme Court.
The Congressional Black Caucus is urging some of the nation’s largest corporations to publicly oppose redistricting efforts by red states in the South that would axe majority-Black congressional districts ahead of the midterms. In a letter sent Tuesday to more than 250 companies, members of the caucus called on business leaders, including those who have…
The OPM released a draft NDA designed for federal agencies to use with new and existing employeesUS politics live – latest updatesDonald Trump’s administration on Tuesday proposed asking federal employees to sign nondisclosure agreements with the goal of preventing them from sharing confidential information with journalists.The office of personnel management (OPM), the human resources office for the US government, released a draft nondisclosure agreement designed for federal agencies to use with new and existing employees. Under the draft agreement, the administration could pursue civil and criminal penalties against employees who violate it. The US government would be entitled to all “royalties” that employees receive from disclosing information that violates the agreement, according to the draft. The OPM did not immediately offer further explanation. Continue reading...
A group of immigration judges in 2020 challenged work-related restrictions on their public speaking engagements, saying they violated their free speech rights.
The GOP is expected to appeal the ruling to the US Supreme Court.