Alabama’s attorney general has asked the Supreme Court to lift a court injunction and let the state use its own congressional map, citing a recent high court ruling that he says undercuts the basis for previous redistricting orders.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall has filed emergency petitions at the Supreme Court seeking permission for the state to use its 2023 congressional map. He argues the court’s recent decision in Callais provides the legal framework to defend maps drawn on traditional redistricting principles. The move could flip one U.S. House seat from Democrat to Republican and alter redistricting battles ahead of 2026.

The backdrop stretches back to Allen v. Milligan, when the Supreme Court required Alabama to create a second district where Black voters could elect their preferred candidate. That order produced a map favoring a second Democratic district, a result the Republican legislature had resisted. Marshall says Callais calls into question the reasoning behind the earlier decision and opens the door to restoring state control.

Marshall described his view of the new legal landscape plainly in an interview with Fox News Digital, telling reporters he was “thrilled” with the court’s ruling. He framed Callais as an authoritative precedent that validates states using long-standing redistricting principles instead of being forced into race-based outcomes. For him, the question is whether courts will now apply the same standards to red states as they do to blue ones.

“Now they have a framework for Alabama to directly defend what the legislature did both in 2021 and 2023. And that is, drawing maps based on historical redistricting principles that now I think Callais makes clear were constitutional exercises of that authority.”

Marshall and state officials filed three emergency petitions asking the Supreme Court to lift the lower-court injunction that kept the Livingston map from taking effect. The injunction, entered after the 2023 redrawing, prevented the legislature’s map from being used in elections. With primaries approaching, Marshall says the clock is ticking and the injunction should not remain given the new high court guidance.

“Because the lower court’s injunction cannot stand in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling, we have asked the court to lift the injunction. Alabama deserves the right to use its own maps, just like every other state.”

There is a procedural wrinkle to clear: unlike Louisiana, Alabama must first be removed from the existing injunction by the three-judge panel before the Supreme Court can act on the underlying map. State leaders continued to move on parallel tracks, with lawmakers meeting in special session as the May 19 primary approached. The state still faces uncertainty over whether the panel will act in time to affect the upcoming ballots.

If the petitions succeed, Alabama’s congressional delegation could shift from a court-ordered 5-2 split to a 6-1 Republican advantage, a swing that matters in a closely divided House. That single seat has national implications and could encourage other Republican-led states to press similar claims. Marshall argues the new legal precedent arms red states with a tool they did not have before.

Marshall has also broadened the fight beyond procedure into principle, arguing that redistricting law has been applied unevenly. He pointed to several blue states where Republicans have significant vote shares but no congressional representation, and he challenged the idea that proportional outcomes are enforced evenly across jurisdictions. His critics see this as a partisan appeal, but Marshall frames it as a call for consistent rules.

“[They’re] arguing for proportional representation, which is basically what they are saying, they make that same argument in Maine, in Rhode Island, in New Hampshire, where you don’t see a single congressional member there from the Republican Party.”

Marshall is fighting a parallel legal battle over Alabama’s state Senate map, which was also redrawn following a Section 2 Voting Rights Act challenge. He contends that the redraws ignored traditional principles and were stitched together for political effect. His team says it remains focused on obtaining relief in both cases so the legislature can exercise mapmaking authority without the constraints imposed by the prior orders.

“And the other thing, not only are we working on the state congressional map, but it’s also, we have a state Senate district [map] likewise that was subject to redrawing based upon a [Voting Rights Act] Section 2 challenge.”

Several developments elsewhere already reflect the new terrain. Governors in other states have acted quickly after the Callais decision, and some courts have revisited maps they once sustained. Marshall points to those moves as evidence the legal ground has shifted and that courts are asking tougher questions about race and partisanship in district drawing.

Marshall also cited a line from Justice Kavanaugh that has resonated in these disputes: “there’s a point in time in which we have to acknowledge that circumstances have changed.” For Alabama, that assertion supports the view that prior remedies may no longer fit present circumstances. Whether the Supreme Court accepts that reasoning for Alabama is now the central question.

Marshall is a candidate for the Senate seat left by a retiring incumbent this fall, so his legal push carries both legal and political weight. He insists the case is about who gets to set maps: courts or elected state lawmakers. With multiple deadlines and unresolved filings, the next few weeks will determine whether Alabama can use its preferred congressional map in upcoming elections.