
Judges reject preclearance request for Alabama congressional plans and keep map in place
The order secures the current map, which created a second district where Black voters are the majority or close to it, for the next several elections. But the order leaves open what the districts will look like after 2030, when the Republican-controlled Alabama Legislature can again draw a map free from court oversight.
The three-judge panel ordered the secretary of state to continue using the current congressional map, which was selected by the court last year, 'until Alabama enacts a new congressional districting plan based on 2030 Census data' and said they will retain jurisdiction over the case until then. Lawmakers have said they did not intend to redraw Alabama's congressional map before the 2030 Census.
The judges rejected a request from plaintiffs to 'bail in' Alabama under the preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act and submit the next-state-drawn congressional map for review before it is used. The judges wrote that they 'discern no compelling reason to tread into such intrusive waters.'
'And we will not, in an unrestrained attempt to resolve any hypothetical issue that may arise far down the road, assign to our Court the exceedingly intrusive task of supervising Alabama's congressional elections for the next fifteen years,' the judges wrote.
The Alabama attorney general's office and the U.S. Department of Justice had both opposed the request.
'We are pleased the Court accepted our arguments and rejected the plaintiffs' far-reaching request,' a spokesman for Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall's office wrote in a statement.
Deuel Ross, an attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, had argued during a July hearing that preclearance was needed to ensure the state doesn't 'backslide.'
Ross said Friday that even though the court rejected preclearance, his clients are pleased the court ordered Alabama to continue using the special master map through 2030.
'This independently-drawn map respects Alabama's many communities of interest, including the Black Belt, and ensures that Black voters will have a fair opportunity to elect congressional candidates of their choice for the rest of the decade,' Ross said.
'This is a hard-fought win for our clients, for all Alabamians, and for democracy itself,' Ross said.
The Voting Rights Act for decades required states with a history of discrimination — including Alabama — to get federal approval before changing the way they hold elections. But the requirement of preclearance effectively went away in 2013 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the provision determining which states are covered was outdated and unconstitutional.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Toronto Sun
4 minutes ago
- Toronto Sun
Appeals court lets the White House suspend or end billions in foreign aid
Published Aug 13, 2025 • 2 minute read President Donald Trump speaks with reporters in the James Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House, Monday, Aug. 11, 2025, in Washington. Photo by Alex Brandon / AP WASHINGTON — A divided panel of appeals court judges ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration can suspend or terminate billions of dollars of congressionally appropriated funding for foreign aid. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account Two of three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that grant recipients challenging the freeze did not meet the requirements for a preliminary injunction restoring the flow of money. In January, on the first day of his second term in the White House, Republican President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development to freeze spending on foreign aid. After groups of grant recipients sued to challenge that order, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ordered the administration to release the full amount of foreign assistance that Congress had appropriated for the 2024 budget year. The appeal court's majority partially vacated Ali's order. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson and Gregory Katsas concluded that the plaintiffs did not have a valid legal basis for the court to hear their claims. The ruling was not on the merits of whether the government unconstitutionally infringed on Congress' spending powers. 'The parties also dispute the scope of the district court's remedy but we need not resolve it … because the grantees have failed to satisfy the requirements for a preliminary injunction in any event,' Henderson wrote. Judge Florence Pan, who dissented, said the Supreme Court has held 'in no uncertain terms' that the president does not have the authority to disobey laws for policy reasons. 'Yet that is what the majority enables today,' Pan wrote. 'The majority opinion thus misconstrues the separation-of-powers claim brought by the grantees, misapplies precedent, and allows Executive Branch officials to evade judicial review of constitutionally impermissible actions.' The money at issue includes nearly $4 billion for USAID to spend on global health programs and more than $6 billion for HIV and AIDS programs. Trump has portrayed the foreign aid as wasteful spending that does not align with his foreign policy goals. Henderson was nominated to the court by Republican President George H.W. Bush. Katsas was nominated by Trump. Pan was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden. RECOMMENDED VIDEO Toronto Maple Leafs World Columnists Editorial Cartoons Celebrity


Toronto Star
34 minutes ago
- Toronto Star
Mexico says 26 capos extradited to US were requested by Trump administration
MEXICO CITY (AP) — Mexico sent 26 alleged cartel figures to face justice in the United States because the Trump administration requested them and Mexico did not want them to continue running their illicit businesses from Mexican prisons, officials said Wednesday. The mass transfer was not, however, part of wider negotiations as Mexico seeks to avoid higher tariffs threatened by U.S. President Donald Trump, they said.


Toronto Star
34 minutes ago
- Toronto Star
Peru enacts amnesty for military personnel and police in Shining Path insurgency
LIMA, Peru (AP) — Peru's president on Wednesday signed an amnesty bill into law, preventing military personnel and police officers from being prosecuted over alleged human rights abuses during the country's armed conflict decades ago. The new law came despite calls from the local and international community to strike it down. The war that raged between the Peruvian military and the Shining Path communist insurgency from 1980 to 2000 left an estimated 70,000 people dead, the majority of them in rural areas.