Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall has filed emergency petitions asking the Supreme Court to let the state use its own congressional maps, a move that could flip a House seat from Democrat to Republican and reshape the national redistricting landscape heading into 2026.

Marshall's challenge builds directly on the Supreme Court's recent ruling in the Louisiana case known as Callais, which came down at the end of April and struck down a majority-minority congressional map in that state. The Alabama attorney general told Fox News Digital he was "thrilled" with the court's decision and saw it as the legal framework Alabama needed to reclaim authority over its own district lines.

The stakes are not abstract. If Marshall prevails, Alabama's congressional delegation could shift from a court-ordered 5-2 Republican-Democrat split to a 6-1 Republican advantage, the Washington Examiner reported. That single seat matters in a closely divided House.

The legal chain: from Milligan to Callais to Alabama's new petition

The backstory starts with Allen v. Milligan, a case from a few years ago in which the Supreme Court invalidated Alabama's redistricting plan and forced the state to draw a second district where Black voters had a meaningful opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice. The result was a second Democratic-favored district, and a map Alabama's Republican legislature never wanted.

Then came Callais. The Supreme Court's ruling in the Louisiana case struck down that state's map, including districts centered on New Orleans and a narrow majority-minority corridor stretching from Baton Rouge. The decision raised pointed questions about the reasoning behind the earlier Alabama ruling and gave Marshall the opening he had been waiting for.

As Marshall put it in an interview with Fox News Digital:

"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."

The Callais ruling has already sent shockwaves through redistricting law nationwide, and Marshall's filing is the most direct attempt yet by a state attorney general to translate that ruling into immediate relief.

Three emergency petitions, and a ticking clock

Alabama officials filed three emergency petitions asking the Supreme Court to allow the state to use its 2023 congressional map and lift the lower-court injunction that blocked it. The so-called Livingston map was originally struck down in 2023, and Marshall argued that the injunction can no longer stand in light of the Callais decision.

Marshall framed the urgency plainly:

"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."

But unlike Louisiana, which received direct relief from the Supreme Court's ruling, Alabama faces an additional procedural step. Marshall explained that his state must first be removed from the injunction by the three-judge panel before it can either return to the challenged map or give the legislature authority to draw a new one.

The timeline is tight. Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen indicated the May 19 primary will go on as expected. State lawmakers were in special session through Friday to address the legislative side of the fight. Marshall said urgency before the court is important with that primary approaching.

One of the emergency petitions stated the case bluntly: "Alabama's case mirrors Louisiana's, and they should end the same way: with this year's elections run with districts based on lawful policy goals, not race."

Marshall's broader argument: the double standard in redistricting

Marshall did not limit his criticism to the legal mechanics of the Alabama case. He took aim at what he described as a one-sided application of redistricting standards across the country, and he named names.

New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, Birmingham Mayor Randall Woodfin, and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Doug Jones all descended on Birmingham for a counter-redistricting forum. Fox News Digital reached out to Booker earlier that week and did not receive a response.

Marshall pointed to New England as exhibit A in his case against the left's selective outrage over redistricting. He noted that Maine has an estimated Republican bloc of about 30 percent, that Vermont had roughly the same percentage of vote share going to President Donald Trump in 2024, and that Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts all have between 10 and 40 percent Republican vote share, with more than 40 percent of people in those states registered as unaffiliated or similar.

Yet not a single Republican holds a congressional seat in any of those states.

Marshall's point was sharp:

"[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."

The implication is clear enough. When Democrats dominate redistricting in deep-blue states, no one files Voting Rights Act challenges demanding proportional representation for Republican voters. But when a red state draws maps that reflect its own political composition, the legal machinery kicks in.

That asymmetry is precisely what some justices have begun to question openly. Marshall referenced Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence in the Milligan case, in which Kavanaugh expressed the sentiment that "there's a point in time in which we have to acknowledge that circumstances have changed."

The state Senate map, and a second front

The congressional map is not Marshall's only fight. He told Fox News Digital that his office is also challenging Alabama's state Senate district map before the New Orleans-based 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. That map, too, was subject to redrawing based on a Voting Rights Act Section 2 challenge.

"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."

Marshall described the redrawing of that map as "clearly [done] for hyper-political reasons that kept none of the traditional principles in mind." His office, he said, remains "singularly focused" on securing legal relief on both fronts.

Meanwhile, the Callais ruling has already forced rapid action in other states. Alabama and Tennessee governors moved quickly after the decision to begin their own redistricting processes. In Louisiana itself, Gov. Jeff Landry halted House primaries after the court threw out the state's congressional map.

Marshall also pointed to Virginia, where the Supreme Court of Virginia struck down a Democratic-led redistricting map, another sign, in his view, that courts are beginning to push back against maps drawn for partisan advantage under the cover of racial equity.

What comes next

Marshall is running to succeed retiring Sen. Tommy Tuberville this fall, which means his legal fight doubles as a political statement. But the substance of the case stands on its own. If the Supreme Court grants Alabama's petition and lifts the injunction, the state legislature could either revert to its 2023 map or draw a new one, without the constraint of creating a second majority-minority district.

Marshall put it simply in a statement: "I will continue to fight for Alabama to be able to use the congressional map the people's elected representatives enacted."

Several questions remain unanswered. The exact filing date and docket number for Marshall's Supreme Court challenge have not been publicly specified. The timeline for the three-judge panel's action on the injunction is unclear. And the legislature's special session may or may not produce a new map before the May 19 primary.

What is clear is that the legal ground has shifted. The Callais ruling gave Republican-led states a weapon they did not have before, a Supreme Court decision that says race cannot predominate in drawing congressional districts, even when the Voting Rights Act is invoked. Marshall is now testing whether that weapon works in Alabama.

For years, the redistricting game has run in one direction: courts force red states to redraw maps, while blue states draw whatever they please. If Marshall's challenge succeeds, the rules might finally apply to both sides.