NEW: Supreme Court's Alabama redistricting ruling marks brazen reversal of its previous stance

[In It to Win It]

https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/supreme-courts-alabama-redistricting-ruling-marks-brazen-reversal-of-its-previous-stance/

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Republican-appointed majority erased all doubts about the sweeping nature of its recent voting rights jurisprudence Tuesday night with a shadow docket ruling that effectively reverses the Court’s own decision in the same matter just three years ago.

The unsigned emergency order in Allen v. Milligan goes beyond the court’s recentLouisiana v. Callais decision, which merely nullified the Voting Rights Act’s (VRA) prohibition on unintentional racial discrimination, to also make it all but impossible for judges to strike down a map as intentionally discriminatory.

It does so by essentially flipping its own 2023 ruling in the same case.

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor excoriated that decision to go down the “path” that “disregards both democratic values and the rule of law, leading to “a chaotic election, held under a never-before-used congressional map that intentionally discriminates against Black Alabamians, that Alabama adopted in unashamed defiance of a prior court order directly affirmed by this Court, and that will require officials to change the voter registrations of hundreds of thousands of voters in just days at best, a task that Alabama previously represented would take months.”

Sotomayor noted that Tuesday’s decision was the third time Alabama’s congressional map had found its way before the high bench, lamenting that “[e]ach turn reveals just how unconscionable the Court’s action is today.”

NEW: The Supreme Court yesterday went beyond its recent ruling gutting the Voting Rights Act, making it all but impossible for courts to strike down a map as intentionally discriminatory.

And it did so by essentially contradicting its own 2023 ruling — in the same case.

Jim Saksa explains👇

— Democracy Docket (@democracydocket.com) 2026-06-03T16:06:19.748474447Z

[Whip-poor-will]

1. precedent

The supremacist court 6 honors precedent like they do toilet paper ...something to shit on

[Spazito]

2. They are working hard to out-do

the Taney Supreme Court of the Dred Scott decision.

They are beyond disgusting and will go down in history as the worst Supreme Court in US history, imo.

[Chasstev365]

3. But don't attack the integrity of the Supreme Court.

Hey John Roberts: FUCK YOU!!!!!!!

[appmanga]

4. Jim Crow John Roberts and His Antebellum Five won't deviate from their assignment...

...and are totally unbothered by being hypocrites, and are impervious to shame. I've cautioned other black people that the only reason we can sit in public restaurants, stay at just about any hotel, or sit where we want on a transport is because of nine guys in black robes, and that can be reversed by five people who, today, don't agree with their conclusion. There are people sitting on this Court who don't believe Brown v. Board of Education was "correctly decided". This Court has no issue in overturning any precedent regard of its age, or the public's reliance. This is a Court that's much more interested in taking away individual rights rather uphold them, much less expand them.

I wouldn't have thought I'd even be on of the people who'd come down on the side of Supreme Court reform, but this Court's radicalism has pushed me there.