Allen v. Milligan Supreme Court Relist: Alabama Redistricting Cases Return

• The Supreme Court has relisted four cases from Alabama, three of which concern the state's congressional district map.
• These three cases, including Allen v. Milligan, are part of a long-running dispute over Alabama congressional redistricting.
• In 2023, the Supreme Court upheld a preliminary injunction against Alabama's 2021 map, citing likely dilution of Black voting strength under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
• Alabama's subsequent replacement map, drawn after the 2023 ruling, also contained only one district where Black voters could elect their preferred candidates.
• After an 11-day trial in 2025, a three-judge district court found the replacement map violated both Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the 14th Amendment.

The Supreme Court's continued engagement with these cases underscores the profound and persistent legal challenges surrounding the interpretation and application of federal voting rights protections in state redistricting efforts.

The Supreme Court is once again turning its attention to a series of cases originating from Alabama, with four new relisted petitions set for review. Among these, three are directly linked to the ongoing dispute over the state's congressional district map, a matter that has repeatedly come before the justices. These specific cases are identified as Allen v. Milligan, Allen v. Singleton, and Allen v. Caster, all of which pertain to the same contentious redistricting plan.

Beyond the significant Alabama congressional redistricting cases, the Court's relist also includes a fourth petition from the state. This unrelated case raises a distinct legal question: whether the use of a motor vehicle transforms an otherwise local kidnapping into a federal offense, even if the vehicle never crosses state lines. However, the primary focus of the current relist watch remains the complex and persistent challenges to Alabama's electoral maps.

The current relisting marks another chapter in a protracted legal battle concerning Alabama's congressional districts. Readers may recall that in 2023, the Supreme Court previously intervened in this matter. At that time, the Court upheld a preliminary injunction against Alabama's 2021 congressional map, signaling that challengers had a strong likelihood of proving the map unlawfully diluted the voting strength of Black citizens.

This earlier ruling was based on potential violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits electoral practices that discriminate on the basis of race. In response to the Supreme Court's directive, Alabama subsequently redrew its congressional map. However, the replacement map, much like its predecessor, continued to feature only a single congressional district where Black voters constituted a sufficient majority to elect their preferred candidates.

Following the creation of the new map, the legal challenges persisted. An 11-day trial was conducted in 2025 before a three-judge district court, which meticulously examined the revised redistricting plan. The court ultimately concluded that this replacement map also failed to comply with federal law.

Specifically, the district court found that the new map violated both Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the 14th Amendment's prohibition against racial discrimination. This finding sets the stage for the Supreme Court's renewed consideration of the Alabama congressional redistricting, highlighting the deep-seated disagreements over fair representation.

The Supreme Court's continued engagement with these cases underscores the profound and persistent legal challenges surrounding the interpretation and application of federal voting rights protections in state redistricting efforts. The outcome of Allen v. Milligan and its companion cases will have significant implications for how states draw electoral maps and how minority voting strength is protected under the Voting Rights Act and the 14th Amendment.

For lawyers advising state legislatures, political campaigns, or civil rights organizations, closely monitoring this SCOTUS relist watch is crucial. The eventual ruling will not only shape Alabama's political landscape but also establish precedents that could impact future electoral map challenges nationwide, particularly concerning the effective representation of minority communities.

Lawyers advising state legislatures, political campaigns, or civil rights organizations must closely monitor the Supreme Court's continued review of the Alabama redistricting cases, as the eventual ruling will significantly impact the interpretation and application of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the 14th Amendment in future electoral map challenges, particularly concerning minority voting strength.

Source: Original reporting via SCOTUSblog