Plaintiffs in Alabama’s ongoing redistricting case asked a federal court on Monday to intervene after Governor Kay Ivey called a special legislative session tied to congressional elections.
In a motion filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, attorneys for plaintiffs including Evan Milligan requested an emergency status conference to address whether the state’s actions comply with an existing court order governing Alabama’s congressional districts.
“The Milligan, Caster and Singleton plaintiffs respectfully request that this court hold an emergency status conference as soon as possible,” the filing said, asking the court to determine whether the Legislature’s actions “violate the injunction or whether their actions otherwise show any bad faith.”
The request came after Ivey issued a proclamation calling lawmakers into special session beginning May 4. The proclamation authorizes lawmakers to consider legislation providing for special primary elections in districts “whose boundary lines are altered by a court issuing a judgment, vacating an injunction, or otherwise ordering or permitting an alteration.”
At issue is a 2025 federal court order that imposed a court-drawn congressional map on Alabama and directed the state to use that plan until new districts are enacted following the 2030 Census. The court described its ruling as a “mandatory injunction” and kept jurisdiction over the case to enforce its terms.
According to the plaintiffs, the court entered that order in part because state legislative leaders represented that they did not intend to pursue additional congressional maps before the next census.
The filing specifically says Senator Steve Livingston, R-Scottsboro, and Representative Chris Pringle, R-Mobile, told the court “in good faith that neither they nor leadership for either chamber of the Alabama Legislature have any intention of passing any additional congressional district maps before receiving 2030 census data.”
The plaintiffs argue that the Legislature’s decision to convene in special session to consider election-related legislation tied to potential changes in district lines raises questions about whether the state is honoring those assurances.
The motion does not accuse Alabama of already violating the court order. Instead, it asks the court to clarify whether the planned legislative activity could conflict with the injunction or signal a change in the state’s position.
The case stems from a long-running legal dispute over Alabama’s congressional maps and compliance with the Voting Rights Act. After earlier maps were found to violate federal law, the court implemented a remedial plan that remains in effect.
It was not immediately clear whether the court will grant the request for an emergency conference or take any further action related to the special session.
