In its emergency application, Alabama argued an immediate stay was needed because the lower-court ruling "defies Callais, manipulates the Purcell principle, and offends the Constitution’s promise of equal protection for all."
Alabama is leaning on the Supreme Court’s recent April ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, which gave Republicans a new weapon against maps from left-wing voting rights activists by making it harder for them to force additional primarily minority districts under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
The decision from the Supreme Court ultimately fueled a wave of fresh redistricting efforts in GOP-led states, including Alabama, which used the Supreme Court’s new Louisiana v. Callais ruling to ask the justices to revisit the lower-court orders blocking the 2023 legislature-drawn map.
In response to the Louisiana case's ruling, the Supreme Court ruled earlier this month on May 11 that the lower court's judgment blocking Alabama's 2023 map should be vacated and sent back for another look. However, on Tuesday, the three-judge federal district court blocked the 2023 map and ordered the court-approved special master map to continue to be used, leading to Alabama's request for emergency relief on Wednesday that was ruled on by Justice Thomas.
The timing of Thomas’ order comes as Alabama officials have already tried to prepare for a rapid switch back to the 2023 map.
After the Supreme Court’s earlier May 11 order sent the case back to the lower court, Gov. Kay Ivey called Aug. 11 special primaries for the affected 1st, 2nd, 6th and 7th Congressional Districts, saying the state was ready to move forward with its Alabama legislature-drawn map.
Fox News Digital reached out to Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall and the American Civil Liberties Union, which is acting as counsel for the left-wing voting rights plaintiffs in the case, but did not receive a response from either parties in time for publication.