Hello, this is Jeff Barnum reading the Supreme Court decision in Wes Allen, Alabama Secretary of State, et al. versus Marcus Castor et al. on application for a stay in three separate decisions from a three-judge district court panel. June 2nd, 2026. Procurium. In Louisiana v. Calais, a Supreme Court case decided just this term to resolve the tension between vote dilution claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and our colorblind constitution, we updated the standards for Section 2 liability established by Thornburg vs. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, a Supreme Court case from 1986. Under Gingles, to prove a Section 2 violation, a plaintiff must first establish three preconditions. First, the minority group must be large and geographically compact enough to be a majority in a reasonably configured congressional district, meaning that the district comports with traditional districting criteria. Second, the minority group must be politically cohesive. Third, the majority group must vote enough as a block to defeat the minority group's preferred candidate. After establishing these three preconditions, the plaintiff must prove that the political process was not equally open to minority voters based on the totality of the circumstances. Calais updated these standards. As relevant here, we held that for plaintiffs to satisfy the first Gingles precondition, a plaintiff's alternative map must meet all of the state's legitimate districting objectives, just as well as the state's own map. Those legitimate districting objectives, we held, include the state's specified political goals and any other goal not prohibited by the Constitution. A plaintiff also cannot use race as a districting criterion in preparing the alternative map. To prove the second and third preconditions, a plaintiff must provide an analysis that controls for party affiliation and show that voters engage in racial bloc voting that cannot be explained by partisan affiliation. These updates we held were necessary to avoid requiring congressional maps under Section 2 that would be unconstitutional racial gerrymanders. After Calais, we vacated district court injunctions that prevented the state of Alabama from using a congressional map that it had enacted in 2023. The district court had held that the state's map violated Section 2 because it had only one district in which black voters were a majority and did not include an additional black opportunity district. The district court also concluded that the 2023 map violated the 14th Amendment because it constituted a deliberate refusal to satisfy the remedial requirements it previously imposed, and an attempt to avoid a future judgment requiring the same remedy. Two weeks after we vacated its injunction, the district court entered another injunction on largely the same grounds. State officials immediately applied to this court for a stay of this injunction. At this preliminary stage, the state has shown that it is entitled to interim early from the district court's injunction. The state is likely to succeed on the merits as to both claims. As to intentional vote dilution, the district court did not heed the presumption of legislative good faith because it interpreted the state's legal disagreement with the court's earlier remedial order as proof of discriminatory animus. And as to both claims, the district court's analysis departed from Calais. Under Calais, the District Court was required to deny relief unless the plaintiff's alternative map performed just as well with respect to all of the state's constitutionally permissible districting criteria. Yet the district court found a violation even though the plaintiff's alternative map would not perform just as well as to the state's constitutionally permissible criteria of keeping together the Gulf Coast community of interest and avoiding the pairing of incumbents. The district court also failed to follow our instruction in Calais that the mere fact that voters of different races vote for different parties is not relevant to proving racially polarized voting patterns. The state has also made a strong showing of irreparable harm and that the equities and public interest favor it. We have repeatedly cautioned that lower federal courts should not alter election rules on the eve of an election. Here, the District Court interposed itself into Alabama's ongoing efforts to conduct its imminent 2026 congressional elections under maps that its elected representative selected. Its view that conducting the elections under court-imposed maps would be more convenient for the state was not a valid justification for that intervention. While federal courts should not impose changes close to an election, states are free to decide for themselves whether last-minute changes to an election are in their best interests. The applications for stay presented to Justice Thomas and by him referred to the court are granted. The May 26, 2026 order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, covering cases ending in 1530 and 1291, is stayed pending the timely docketing of the appeal in this court. Should the jurisdictional statement be timely filed, this order shall remain in effect pending this court's action on the appeal. If the appeal is dismissed or the judgment affirmed, this order shall terminate automatically. In the event jurisdiction is noted or postponed, this order will remain in effect pending the sending down of the judgment of this court. The May 26, 2026 order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, case ending in 1536, is stayed pending the timely filing of a petition for a writ of surtiore. Should the petition for a writ of surtiore be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of surti is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this court. It is so ordered. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion in which Justices Kagan and Jackson joined. Thank you for listening. Please help us by rating and reviewing this podcast wherever you get your podcasts, and recommend them to your friends, family, coworkers, and even your yoga yogi. Please make sure you subscribe so you can get all of the OT twenty five decisions automatically delivered to your device. If you wish to communicate with the podcast, please email us at ScotusDisions at gmail.com or click the link in the show notes. Thanks so much, and I hope you have a great day.