Court asked to bar Alabama from using state’s preferred map

The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued significant rulings impacting both voting rights and criminal justice reform. In a closely watched Alabama redistricting case, the Court, on June 2, 2026, allowed the state to use its preferred congressional map, which a lower court had found to be intentionally discriminatory, by staying an injunction and remanding the case for reconsideration in light of its recent decision in *Louisiana v. Callais*. This move signals a potentially narrower interpretation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Concurrently, the Court further shaped the implementation of the First Step Act through decisions in *Rutherford v. United States* and *Fernandez v. United States*, narrowing the scope of compassionate release by holding that non-retroactive changes in sentencing law do not constitute "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for sentence reduction. The Court also granted certiorari in *Maxwell v. Thomas*, indicating continued judicial scrutiny of the Act's provisions.

The United States Supreme Court continues to be a pivotal arena for defining the contours of fundamental rights and statutory interpretation, as evidenced by its recent actions concerning Alabama's congressional redistricting and the First Step Act. In a development that has sent ripples through the voting rights community, the Court, on June 2, 2026, intervened in the protracted legal battle over Alabama's congressional map, granting the state's request to use a map previously deemed racially discriminatory by a lower court. This decision, coming amidst ongoing primary elections, underscores the Court's evolving approach to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and the delicate balance between state sovereignty and federal protections against vote dilution.

Simultaneously, the Court has issued new guidance on the First Step Act, a landmark bipartisan criminal justice reform law. These rulings, particularly concerning compassionate release, reflect the judiciary's ongoing role in interpreting and applying the Act's provisions, often with significant implications for incarcerated individuals. Together, these cases highlight the Supreme Court's active engagement in shaping critical areas of American law, demanding close attention from legal practitioners navigating these complex and often politically charged landscapes.

The Alabama redistricting saga originates from the state's 2021 congressional map, drawn after the 2020 census. Despite Black residents constituting approximately 27% of Alabama's population, the map created only one majority-Black district out of seven, leading to challenges under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 2 prohibits any voting qualification or practice that "results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color." The Supreme Court's precedent for evaluating such claims, established in *Thornburg v. Gingles*, 478 U.S. 30 (1986), requires plaintiffs to demonstrate that a minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact, is politically cohesive, and that the white majority votes as a bloc to defeat the minority's preferred candidates.

In *Allen v. Milligan*, 599 U.S. 1 (2023), a three-judge district court initially found Alabama's 2021 map likely violated Section 2 and ordered a remedial map with two districts where Black voters would have an opportunity to elect their preferred candidates. The Supreme Court affirmed this finding in June 2023, rejecting Alabama's arguments to narrow Section 2. Following this, the Alabama Legislature drew a new map in 2023, which again contained only one majority-Black district. A federal court subsequently ruled this 2023 map also violated Section 2 and the Fourteenth Amendment due to intentional racial discrimination, mandating the use of a court-ordered remedial map for the 2024 elections.

Separately, the First Step Act of 2018 (FSA) introduced significant reforms to federal sentencing and prison practices, aiming to reduce recidivism and address disparities, particularly concerning crack cocaine offenses. Key provisions included making the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 retroactive, expanding judicial discretion in certain drug cases, and reforming compassionate release. The Act allowed inmates to directly petition courts for compassionate release after exhausting administrative remedies, a significant shift from prior law. Previous Supreme Court cases, such as *Terry v. United States*, 593 U.S. ___ (2021), and *Concepcion v. United States*, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), have interpreted various aspects of the FSA, shaping its application in federal courts.

The Supreme Court's recent action in the Alabama redistricting case, occurring on June 2, 2026, represents a significant turn in the ongoing litigation. By granting Alabama's emergency application to use its 2023 congressional map and staying the lower court's injunction, the Court effectively allowed a map previously found to be intentionally discriminatory to be used, at least temporarily, for the upcoming elections. This decision was made in light of the Court's April 2026 ruling in *Louisiana v. Callais*, which reportedly weakened the federal Voting Rights Act. The Court's conservative majority, in a 6-3 decision, cited the *Purcell* principle, which generally advises against changing election rules close to an election, to justify its intervention. However, dissenting justices argued that this application of *Purcell* was misplaced, given the lower court's explicit finding of intentional racial discrimination and the potential for voter confusion caused by last-minute changes. This development raises serious concerns about the practical enforceability of Section 2 of the VRA and the judiciary's willingness to intervene against racial gerrymandering, even when discriminatory intent is found.

Simultaneously, the Supreme Court has continued to refine the application of the First Step Act. In May 2026, the Court issued rulings in *Rutherford v. United States* and *Fernandez v. United States*, which significantly narrowed the grounds for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The Court held that non-retroactive changes in sentencing law, such as the elimination of mandatory minimum stacking for certain firearm offenses, do not, by themselves, constitute "extraordinary and compelling reasons" warranting a sentence reduction. This interpretation restricts judges' discretion to grant compassionate release based on disparities created by subsequent legislative reforms that Congress chose not to apply retroactively. Critics argue that these decisions undermine the spirit of the First Step Act, which aimed to expand avenues for sentence reduction and address disproportionate sentences.

Furthermore, the Court recently granted certiorari in *Maxwell v. Thomas* for its upcoming term, signaling continued scrutiny of the First Step Act. This case will address whether federal prisoners can use habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge the Bureau of Prisons' handling of good time credits, a provision expanded by the First Step Act. The ongoing litigation surrounding the FSA highlights persistent ambiguities in its text and the challenges of implementing comprehensive criminal justice reform, particularly regarding retroactivity and judicial discretion.

The Supreme Court's recent actions present a mixed and evolving landscape for legal practitioners in voting rights and criminal justice. The decision to allow Alabama to use its preferred, allegedly discriminatory, congressional map, even temporarily, underscores the increasing difficulty of challenging redistricting plans under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, particularly in the wake of *Louisiana v. Callais*. Practitioners involved in election law must closely monitor the remand of *Allen v. Milligan* and anticipate potential shifts in how federal courts evaluate claims of vote dilution and racial gerrymandering, possibly requiring new strategies to demonstrate discriminatory effect or intent.

For criminal defense attorneys and those specializing in post-conviction relief, the *Rutherford* and *Fernandez* decisions significantly curtail the use of non-retroactive sentencing changes as a basis for compassionate release. This necessitates a re-evaluation of arguments for sentence reductions, focusing on other "extraordinary and compelling reasons" recognized by the Sentencing Commission or individual circumstances. The upcoming *Maxwell v. Thomas* case will further clarify the avenues available for challenging the calculation and application of good time credits. Practitioners should stay abreast of these developments and consider legislative advocacy as a potential avenue to address judicial interpretations that may diverge from the original intent of the First Step Act.