“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
The state of Alabama sought to use maps allowing improper dilution of black voting strength.
What happened in this case?
After the Alabama state legislature redrew its state senate voting maps in 2021, the NAACP and others sued in federal court, contending that the redrawn lines violated section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA) by diluting black voting strength. The district court agreed and drew new voting maps in 2025, which were required to be used in May, 2026 primary elections. The state sought a stay in 2025, which both the district court and the court of appeals denied, and further briefing was held in abeyance pending the outcome of the Callais case in the Supreme Court. Shortly after the 2026 elections, the Alabama secretary of state renewed its appeal of the district court injunctions and moved in the Eleventh Circuit to stay them pending the appeal, even though the maps that resulted had just been used in state elections.
In a 2-1 order, Trump judges Elizabeth Branch and Robert Luck granted the requested stay in its May decision in Alabama State Conf of the NAACP v Secretary of State. Biden judge Nancy Abudu dissented.
What did Trump judges Branch and Luck say about granting the stay to the state?
Judges Branch and Luck claimed that the state had made a “strong showing” that the district court’s injunctions creating new districts should be vacated and reconsidered in light of the Supreme Court’s Callais decision restricting Section 2 of the VRA. They also maintained that the injuncions “irreparably harm” Alabama because they prohibit conducting state elections in accord with the map the legislature drew in 2021 and that the NAACP had not shown that the 2021 map violates the VRA under Callais.
Why did Judge Abudu dissent?
Judge Abudu strongly disagreed. She noted that the district court’s findings of fact “still support a showing of intentional racial discrimination” in the legislature’s drawing of lines in 2021, and that the lower court determined that “the remedial plan was not created with race as a predominant factor.” The current record, she went on, “strongly suggests” that the plaintiffs “remain entitled” to judgment in their favor even after Callais. In addition, she pointed out, the harm to the public from the delay caused by a stay would be “acute,” especially since elections using the redrawn maps had just been held.
Why is the ruling harmful?
The decision by Trump judges Branch and Luck obviously harms the NAACP and others who sought redistricting to remedy dilution of black citizens’ votes in Alabama. It also threatens confusion and delay to all state voters in light of just-completed primary elections, which the state may well seek to redo, and exemplifies the harm to voting rights and elections caused by Callais. The decision also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.