Allen v. Milligan (formerly Merrill v. Milligan) – Redistricting (AL)

In 2021, Alabama legislators revised the state’s congressional districts based on the results of the 2020 census. But the 2021 map only included one majority-Black district out of the state’s seven, despite the fact that Black residents make up roughly one-quarter of the state’s population.

Black voters and civil rights organizations sued to block the state from implementing the map, arguing that it violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). Section 2 of the VRA, the voters argued, prevents states from implementing any policies—including congressional districts—that dilute the power of minority voters.

In early 2022, a district court temporarily blocked the state from using the 2021 congressional map and ordered the legislature to create a new map that included a second majority-Black district. Alabama appealed the district court’s ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, which temporarily put that order on hold and allowed the state to use the 2021 map in the 2022 midterm elections.

After hearing oral arguments later that year, however, the Supreme Court ruled in June 2023 that the 2021 map likely violated the VRA and upheld the district court’s decision.

The state legislature went on to adopt a new map in 2023. However, that map, too, only included one majority-Black district.

The same voters took the state to court again, and once again prevailed. A three-judge panel blocked the use of the 2023 map and ultimately appointed an independent special master to draw new districts—including one majority-Black district and one near-majority Black district—that were used in the 2024 elections.

The state appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court again in August 2025, asking the justices to lift the judge’s order blocking the use of the 2023 map.

On July 18, 2022, former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, former Massachusetts Gov. William F. Weld, and former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman filed an amicus brief in the consolidated case at the U.S. Supreme Court, urging the justices to uphold key portions of the VRA that protect minority voters from having their voting power diluted. States United, Cooley LLP, and Jonathan L. Williams, P.A., served as pro bono outside counsel to the governors on the brief.

In their brief, the governors highlighted the importance of ensuring that minority voters, like all Americans, can elect candidates who will represent their interests. The group wrote that the Court should uphold the precedent set in Thornburg v. Gingles, a 1986 case in which court held that minority vote dilution violates Section 2 of the VRA if plaintiffs can prove that:

1. A “minority group” is “sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in some reasonably configured legislative district”;
2. The minority group is “politically cohesive,” in that its members vote similarly;
3. The majority group “vote[s] sufficiently as a bloc” to usually “defeat the minority’s preferred candidate”; and
4. Based on the totality of the circumstances, the political process is not equally open to minority voters.

In the brief, the governors also noted that the Gingles framework appropriately maintains state and local autonomy over districting and requires the drawing of majority-minority districts only in limited circumstances.

After the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Louisiana v. Callais—ruling that Louisiana’s creation of a second majority-Black district to resolve a similar violation of the VRA was unconstitutional—Alabama officials asked the justices to expedite their decision and lift the lower court ruling that blocked the state from implementing the 2023 map.

Soon after the Alabama officials submitted their request to the nation’s high court, the state legislature passed a law that would re-implement the 2023 map if the Supreme Court allowed it to do so.

On May 11, a majority of justices voted to grant Alabama’s request, lifting the lower court’s order and allowing the state to implement the 2023 map ahead of this year’s midterm elections.

The same group that brought the original case returned to the lower court, asking the federal judge to once again block the state from using the 2023 map. The plaintiffs noted that Alabamians already cast ballots this year under the remedial map.

“Alabama’s attempt to revert to its 2023 map—a map that was never implemented and under which no one has ever voted—when this election is already underway, absentee ballots have been mailed, and every relevant deadline under state and federal law has long since passed, is contrary to the public interest,” the group’s motion reads. “Absent a temporary restraining order, this about-face will upend settled expectations, destabilize an active election, and inflict precisely the voter confusion and administrative chaos federal courts have repeatedly guarded against.”

The judge agreed, and on May 26 issued another order blocking the state from using the 2023 map.

The next day, Alabama officials appealed once again to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to pause the new order. On June 2, the justices granted their request and permitted the use of the 2023 map in November’s midterm elections.

• Amicus brief (filed July 18, 2022)
• Press release (July 19, 2022)

• SCOTUSblog: Conservative justices seem poised to uphold Alabama’s redistricting plan in Voting Rights Act challenge (Oct. 4, 2022)
• Vox: The Supreme Court’s newest attack on voting rights, explained (Feb. 8, 2022)
• Bloomberg Law: Top Court Restores Alabama Map in Blow to Black Voting Power (Feb. 7, 2022)