A wave of legal battles over congressional maps is intensifying across the South ahead of this year’s midterm elections, with voting rights groups, Democratic officials, and civil rights advocates warning that recent court decisions are weakening protections against racial vote dilution and allowing states to redraw political boundaries in ways that diminish Black political representation.
The latest escalation came Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority cleared the way for Alabama to use a congressional map containing just one majority-Black district out of seven, despite African Americans making up roughly 26 percent of the state’s population. The unsigned 6-3 order arrived less than three years after the same court ordered Alabama to create a second majority-Black district under the Voting Rights Act and only one week before the state’s primary election.
The Court issued no explanation for the decision, which immediately intensified criticism from voting rights advocates who argue the judiciary is retreating from longstanding protections against racially discriminatory district maps.
The Alabama order followed last month’s Louisiana v. Callais ruling, another 6-3 decision split along ideological lines in which the Supreme Court ruled Louisiana’s congressional map was “an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.” Critics argued the decision effectively dismantled what remained of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the provision that historically allowed voters of color to challenge discriminatory redistricting plans in federal court.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor sharply criticized the Court’s latest Alabama decision in dissent, emphasizing that the state had already been found to have intentionally discriminated against Black voters.
“That constitutional finding of intentional discrimination is independent of, and unaffected by, any of the legal issues discussed in Callais,” Sotomayor wrote after noting that the Court had previously determined “Alabama violated the 14th Amendment by intentionally diluting the votes of Black voters.”
The Alabama ruling arrived the same day that the ACLU and ACLU of Tennessee filed a federal lawsuit challenging Tennessee’s newly approved congressional map, which plaintiffs argue intentionally dismantles the state’s only majority-Black district centered in Memphis. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of three Black voters, the Black Clergy Collaborative of Memphis, the Memphis A. Philip Randolph Institute, and the Equity Alliance after Tennessee Republicans approved the map during a special legislative session and Republican Gov. Bill Lee signed it into law.
According to the lawsuit, the new district lines split Black voters in Memphis and Shelby County across three majority-white congressional districts stretching hundreds of miles into central Tennessee, significantly reducing Black voters’ political influence.
The ACLU of Tennessee stated that the map “divides Black voters in Memphis and Shelby County across three majority-white districts that stretch from Memphis hundreds of miles into central Tennessee, diluting Black Memphians’ votes and stripping those communities of any meaningful voice in Congress.”
The lawsuit further alleges that Tennessee lawmakers intentionally targeted Black voters after they successfully elected candidates of their choice. Plaintiffs argued that the map not only violates constitutional protections against racial discrimination but also retaliates against Black voters for exercising their First Amendment rights through political participation and association.
“Black voters in Memphis did exactly what the Constitution empowers every American to do, which is to choose their representative,” ACLU of Tennessee executive director Miriar Nemeth said in a statement. “The Legislature’s response was an effort to ensure that those votes never carry the same weight again. The law has a name for this, and it’s not redistricting, it is textbook First Amendment retaliation. And it is, at its heart, racism.”
The Tennessee litigation is one of several legal challenges surrounding the state’s congressional maps. The Tennessee branch of the NAACP, the state Democratic Party, Democratic candidates, and voters have also filed lawsuits contesting the new districts.
Voting rights advocates argue the Tennessee case reflects a broader regional strategy emerging in Southern states where Republican-controlled legislatures are redrawing district boundaries in ways that reduce Black political representation while strengthening Republican electoral advantages ahead of the midterms.
The current redistricting battles accelerated after President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans pushed Texas to pursue mid-decade redistricting in an effort to preserve GOP control of Congress. Democratic-led states responded with countermeasures of their own, including California, where voters approved new congressional lines expected to benefit Democrats.
Additional redistricting conflicts have since emerged in Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia, turning congressional mapmaking into a nationwide political arms race before November’s elections.
Virginia became the latest flashpoint Monday when Democratic Attorney General Jay Jones and top Democratic legislative leaders asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block a ruling by the Virginia Supreme Court that invalidated a voter-approved congressional map favoring Democrats.
Virginia Democrats argued that the state high court improperly overturned the will of voters who had narrowly approved a constitutional amendment establishing the new districts. Their emergency filing accused the Virginia Supreme Court of adopting a “novel and manifestly atextual interpretation” of the state constitution.
The filing argued that the court “overrode the will of the people who ratified the amendment by ordering the commonwealth to conduct its election with the congressional districts that the people rejected.”
Virginia Democrats further argued that the state court improperly interfered with federal election authority by rejecting the constitutional amendment approved by voters. According to the filing, the Virginia Supreme Court “transgressed the ordinary bounds of judicial review such that it arrogated to itself the power vested in the state legislature to regulate federal elections.”
The filing also warned of immediate logistical consequences if the ruling stands, arguing that “the irreparable harm resulting from the Supreme Court of Virginia’s decision is profound and immediate.”
Despite the appeal, several Democrats acknowledged that time constraints and election administration deadlines may prevent any changes from affecting this year’s congressional races even if the U.S. Supreme Court intervenes. State Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell pointed to Virginia’s approaching ballot deadlines and outdated election software as major obstacles to implementing new districts before voting begins.
The Washington Post reported that some Democratic leaders are already shifting toward organizing within the existing maps rather than expecting judicial intervention to reshape the elections before November.
Rep. Jennifer McClellan reflected that growing sense of urgency when she said, “Since we can’t control anything other than mobilizing and organizing, then let’s mobilize and organize and turn our anger into fuel for that.”
The legal disputes unfolding across multiple states are occurring against the backdrop of growing public skepticism about the Supreme Court’s neutrality in election-related cases. Last week, Chief Justice John Roberts rejected the increasingly widespread perception that Supreme Court justices are “political actors.”
Following Monday’s Alabama ruling, Loyola Law School professor Justin Levitt responded sarcastically on Bluesky, writing, “Boy, it’s a complete mystery why the public thinks the court is making partisan political decisions.”
The disputes also reflect the continuing transformation of voting rights law following years of Supreme Court rulings that narrowed federal protections against racial discrimination in elections. Critics argue that recent decisions involving Alabama and Louisiana have further weakened the remaining enforcement mechanisms of the Voting Rights Act by making it more difficult for minority voters to challenge discriminatory maps in court.
Advocates warn that the combined effect of aggressive redistricting efforts and increasingly restrictive judicial rulings could substantially reshape Black political representation across the South for years to come. Those concerns have become especially pronounced in states such as Alabama and Tennessee, where Black communities have historically relied on federal voting rights protections to challenge district maps that diluted their electoral power.
Democratic leaders have increasingly framed the redistricting fights as part of a broader national struggle over voting rights and democratic representation. In a letter to fellow House Democrats, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries condemned what he described as “the vicious Republican assault on the right to vote, free and fair elections, and Black political representation in the South.”
Jeffries also announced a caucus-wide briefing focused on “the largest voter protection effort in modern American history” and pledged that “our effort to forcefully push back against the Republican redistricting scheme will not slow down.”
The overlapping legal battles in Alabama, Tennessee, Virginia, and other states now place the Supreme Court at the center of an increasingly consequential struggle over who holds political power in the South and how far courts are willing to go in protecting minority voting rights as the midterm elections approach.
COMMENTS