Emergency Application — Wes Allen, Alabama Secretary of State, et al., Applicants v. Marcus Caster, et al.
Supreme Court briefMay 27, 2026
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
No. 25A___
Supreme Court of the United States
____________________________________________________
HON. WES ALLEN,
IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE ALABAMA SECRETARY OF STATE, ET AL.,
Applicants,
v.
MARCUS CASTER, ET AL.,
Respondents.
__________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX TO EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR STAY: VOLUME 3 OF 3
___________________________________________________________________________
Michael P. Taunton
Riley Kate Lancaster
BALCH & BINGHAM LLP
1901 Sixth Ave. N., Ste. 1500
Birmingham, AL 35203
Taylor A.R. Meehan
CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC
1600 Wilson Blvd., Ste. 700
Arlington, VA 22209
Steve Marshall
Attorney General
A. Barrett Bowdre
Solicitor General
Counsel of Record
Robert M. Overing
Principal Deputy Solicitor General
James W. Davis
Brenton M. Smith
Deputy Attorneys General
Benjamin M. Seiss
Assistant Attorney General
STATE OF ALABAMA
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
501 Washington Avenue
Montgomery, AL 36104
(334) 242-7300
Barrett.Bowdre@AlabamaAG.gov
Counsel for Applicants
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Volume 1
District Court Opinion and Order Granting Preliminary Injunction and
Denying Stay Pending Appeal in Milligan v. Allen, No. 2:21-cv-1530
(N.D. Ala. May 26, 2026), Doc. 537 ............................................................................... 1
District Order Adopting Milligan and Singleton Preliminary Injunction,
No. 2:21-cv-1536 (N.D. Ala. May 26, 2026), Doc. 443 .............................................. 103
Volume 2
Preliminary Injunction Hearing Transcript (May 22, 2026) ................................... 106
Volume 3
Time Sensitive Motion for Stay Pending Appeal ..................................................... 336
1
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 1 of 57
No. 26-11828
════════════════════════════════════════
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
──────────────────────────────
MARCUS CASTER, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE STATE OF ALABAMA, et al.,
Defendants-Appellants.
──────────────────────────────
On Interlocutory Appeal from the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
No. 2:21-cv-1536-AMM
════════════════════════════════════
TIME SENSITIVE MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL
════════════════════════════════════
Steve Marshall
Attorney General
A. Barrett Bowdre
Solicitor General
Robert M. Overing
Principal Deputy Solicitor General
STATE OF ALABAMA
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
501 Washington Avenue
Montgomery, Alabama 36130-0152
Tel: (334) 353-8892
Barrett.Bowdre@AlabamaAG.gov
Counsel for Defendant-Appellant Secretary
of State for the State of Alabama
MAY 27, 2026
App. 336
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 2 of 57
Caster v. Secretary of State for the State of Ala., No. 26-11828
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and Eleventh Circuit
Rule 26.1-1(a)(3) and 26.1-2(b), the undersigned counsel certifies that the following
listed persons and parties may have an interest in the outcome of this case:
1)
Acharya, Avidit
2)
Adams, Hon. Jerusha T.
3)
Adegbile, Debo P.
4)
Aden, Leah
5)
Aderholt, Rep. Robert
6)
Agricola, Jr., Algert Swanson
7)
Agricola, Barbara H.
8)
Agricola Law, LLC
9)
Alabama Attorney General’s Office
10)
Alabama Center for Law and Liberty
11)
Alabama Democratic Conference
12)
Alabama Legislative Black Caucus
13)
Alabama State Conference of the NAACP
14)
Allen, Amanda N.
15)
Allen, Hon. Richard F.
16)
Allen, Hon. Wes
C-1 of 30
App. 337
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 3 of 57
Caster v. Secretary of State for the State of Ala., No. 26-11828
17)
America First Legal Foundation
18)
American Bar Association
19)
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
20)
American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama
21)
American Legislative Exchange Council
22)
Amunson, Jessica Ring
23)
Andrews, Darryl
24)
Ashmore, Susan
25)
Ashton, Anthony
26)
Atkins, Robert A.
27)
Baker & Hostetler LLP
28)
Balch & Bingham LLP
29)
Bannon, Alicia L.
30)
Barnes, Anna Kathryn
31)
Barreto, Matt A.
32)
Barry, Nicholas
33)
Beato, Michael
34)
Beatty, Rep. Joyce
35)
Becker, Amariah
36)
Benbrook, Bradley A.
C-2 of 30
App. 338
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 4 of 57
Caster v. Secretary of State for the State of Ala., No. 26-11828
37)
Benbrook Law Group, PC
38)
Berger, Sen. Philip E.
39)
Berry, Jonathan
40)
Billingsley, Eddie
41)
Birnbaum, Sheila L.
42)
Bishop, Kimberley A.
43)
Blacksher, James Uriah
44)
Blackwell, Matthew
45)
Blankenship, Joel R.
46)
Blankenship Law Firm, LLC
47)
Bloom, III, H. William
48)
Bobrow, Anna
49)
Bokat-Lindell, Noah B.
50)
Bonta, Hon. Rob
51)
Born, Emily J.
52)
Bowdre, A. Barrett
53)
Boyden Gray & Associates
54)
Bracy, Jr., Rep. Napoleon
55)
Braden, Efrem Marshall
56)
Bradley, Neil
C-3 of 30
App. 339
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 5 of 57
Caster v. Secretary of State for the State of Ala., No. 26-11828
57)
Branch, Aria C.
58)
Braun, Sen. John
59)
Brennan Center for Justice
60)
Brnovich, Hon. Mark
61)
Bronson, Kristin M.
62)
Brown, Mitchell
63)
Brown, W. Tucker
64)
Bucks County, Pennsylvania
65)
Burr and Forman LLP
66)
Burrell, Ashley
67)
Burroughs, Kate
68)
Buschbacher, Michael
69)
Butterfield, Rep. G.K.
70)
Byrd, Arkie
71)
Cage, Edgar
72)
Cameron, Hon. Daniel
73)
Campaign Legal Center
74)
Campbell, Matthew
75)
Campbell-Harris, Dayton
76)
Carl, Jr., Rep. Jerry
C-4 of 30
App. 340
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 6 of 57
Caster v. Secretary of State for the State of Ala., No. 26-11828
77)
Carlton, Alexandra
78)
Carr, Hon. Chris
79)
Carter, Brittany
80)
Caster, Marcus
81)
Cedarbaum, Adam
82)
Center for Fair Housing
83)
Central Alabama Fair Housing Center
84)
Chakraborty, Amitav
85)
Chaudhuri, Pooja
86)
Cheek, Jason R.
87)
Chen, Jowei
88)
Chestnut, LaKeisha
89)
Chiu, David
90)
Christie, Jr., J. S. “Chris”
91)
Citizens United
92)
Citizens United Foundation
93)
City and County of Denver, Colorado
94)
City and County of San Francisco, California
95)
City of Austin, Texas
96)
City of Baltimore, Maryland
C-5 of 30
App. 341
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 7 of 57
Caster v. Secretary of State for the State of Ala., No. 26-11828
97)
City of Boston, Massachusetts
98)
City of Cincinnati, Ohio
99)
City of Cleveland, Ohio
100) City of Columbus, Ohio
101) City of Gary, Indiana
102) City of Houston, Texas
103) City of Los Angeles, California
104) City of Madison, Wisconsin
105) City of Montgomery, Alabama
106) City of New York, New York
107) City of Oakland, California
108) City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
109) City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
110) City of Saint Paul, Minnesota
111) City of San Diego, California
112) City of Santa Fe, New Mexico
113) City of South Bend, Indiana
114) Clark, Matthew J.
115) Clarke, Hon. Kristen
116) Cleary, Yahonnes
C-6 of 30
App. 342
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 8 of 57
Caster v. Secretary of State for the State of Ala., No. 26-11828
117) Cleland, Bartlett
118) Clemon, Hon. U.W.
119) Coastal Alabama Partnership
120) Cole, David D.
121) Coleman, Craig S.
122) Coleman, Jeff
123) Coleman, Sen. Merika
124) Coleman-Madison, Sen. Linda
125) Commonwealth of Kentucky
126) Commonwealth of Massachusetts
127) Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
128) Compass Demographics, Inc
129) Congressional Black Caucus
130) Constitutional Accountability Center
131) Cooley LLP
132) Cornelius, Hon. Staci G.
133) Cortes, Diana P.
134) Council of the City of New York, New York
135) County of Alameda, California
136) County of Marin, California
C-7 of 30
App. 343
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 9 of 57
Caster v. Secretary of State for the State of Ala., No. 26-11828
137) County of Santa Clara, California
138) Covington & Burling LLP
139) Cozen O’Connor
140) Croslin, Chike
141) Crum, Travis
142) Danforth, Sen. John R.
143) Data, Sonika R.
144) Daun, Margaret C.
145) Davis, James W.
146) Davis, Martha
147) Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
148) DeBouse, Bobby Lee
149) Dechert LLP
150) DeConcini, Sen. Dennis W.
151) Defner, Armand
152) DeFord, Daryl R.
153) de Leeuw, Michael B.
154) De León, Jacqueline
155) de Nevers, Orion
156) Dentons Sirote PC
C-8 of 30
App. 344
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 10 of 57
Caster v. Secretary of State for the State of Ala., No. 26-11828
157) Dhillon, Harmeet K.
158) Dhillon Law Group, Inc.
159) Diaz, Gabriel
160) Dicello Levitt Gutzler
161) Dickinson Wright, PLLC
162) District of Columbia
163) Dominick Feld Hyde
164) Dowdy, Shalela
165) Dreeben, Michael R.
166) Duggan, Matthew R.
167) Dunn, Chad W.
168) Dunn, David
169) Durbin, Sen. Richard J.
170) Duren, Colby
171) Durenberger, Sen. David F.
172) Duvernay, Stephen M.
173) Ebenstein, Julie A.
174) Echohawk, John E.
175) Edward Still Law Firm LLC
176) Elias Law Group LLP
C-9 of 30
App. 345
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 11 of 57
Caster v. Secretary of State for the State of Ala., No. 26-11828
177) Elias, Marc E.
178) Elliot, Mara W.
179) Ellison, Hon. Keith
180) Ellsworth, Jessica L.
181) Elmendorf, Christopher S.
182) Ely, Hon. David R.
183) Englert, Jr., Roy T.
184) Escalona, Hon. Prim F.
185) Espy, Benjamin J.
186) Espy, III, Joseph C.
187) Espy, William M.
188) Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
189) Fair Housing Center of Northern Alabama
190) Faulks, LaTisha Gotell
191) Ferguson, Hon. Robert W.
192) Feuer, Michael N.
193) Fitch, Hon. Lynn
194) Fitzgerald, Michael W.
195) Fletcher, Brian H.
196) Flynn, Erin H.
C-10 of 30
App. 346
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 12 of 57
Caster v. Secretary of State for the State of Ala., No. 26-11828
197) Ford, Hon. Aaron D.
198) Forero-Norena, Mateo
199) Forstein, Carolyn M.
200) Fox, David R.
201) Fram, Robert
202) Frasure, Lorrie
203) Frey, Hon. Aaron M.
204) Friedman, Lee Turner
205) Frosh, Hon. Brian E.
206) Fulginiti, Emily
207) Gaber, Mark P.
208) Gaines, Rep. Houston
209) Gans, David H.
210) Garth, Andrew W.
211) Garza, Delia
212) Gbe, Harmony A.
213) Ge, Qizhou
214) Genberg, Jack
215) Gershenson, Adam S.
216) Gillespie, Noah N.
C-11 of 30
App. 347
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 13 of 57
Caster v. Secretary of State for the State of Ala., No. 26-11828
217) Glavin, Emily
218) Gold, Dara
219) Goldstein, Samuel B.
220) Gordon, Phillip M.
221) Gorod, Brianne J.
222) Gray, Fred D.
223) Greater Birmingham Ministries
224) Green, Jeffrey T.
225) Greenbaum, Jon M.
226) Greenwood, Ruth
227) Geiger, Soren A.
228) Griffin, Mark D.
229) Haas, Michael
230) Hamilton, Gene P.
231) Hare, Eli J.
232) Harris County Attorney’s Office
233) Harris, A. Reid
234) Harris, Jeffrey Matthew
235) Hartnett, Kathleen
236) Harvard Law School Election Law Clinic
C-12 of 30
App. 348
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 14 of 57
Caster v. Secretary of State for the State of Ala., No. 26-11828
237) Hattix, Lauren Ann
238) Hauenschild, Jonathon P.
239) Healey, Hon. Maura
240) Heard, Bradley E.
241) Hebert, J. Gerald
242) Herren, Jr., T. Christian
243) Hewitt, Damon T.
244) Hinds-Radix, Sylvia O.
245) Hirsch, Sam
246) Ho, Hon. Dale E.
247) Hogan Lovells US LLP
248) Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak, PLLC
249) Holwell Shuster & Goldberg LLP
250) Holzrichter, Mitch
251) Hunt, Darnell
252) Hurwitz, Jonathan H.
253) Igra, Naomi
254) Jackson, Letetia
255) Jackson, Sidney M.
C-13 of 30
App. 349
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 15 of 57
Caster v. Secretary of State for the State of Ala., No. 26-11828
256) Jacobsen, Cassandra M.
257) James, Hon. Letitia
258) Jasrasaria, Jyoti
259) Jenner & Block LLP
260) Jennings, Hon. Kathleen
261) Johnson, Hayden
262) Johnson, Kristen A.
263) Jonathan L. Williams, P.A.
264) Jones, Benjamin
265) Jordan, Albert L.
266) Justman, Jeffrey P.
267) Kadoura, Justin
268) Kaul, Hon. Joshua L.
269) Kelson, Jared M.
270) Kennedy, Sandra
271) Kennedy, Sen. John F.
272) Khan, Joseph J.
273) Khanna, Abha
274) Klein, Benjamin
275) Klein, Zach
C-14 of 30
App. 350
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 16 of 57
Caster v. Secretary of State for the State of Ala., No. 26-11828
276) Klipper, Michael R.
277) Knudsen, Hon. Austin
278) Kousser, J. Morgan
279) Kramer Levin Robbins Russell
280) Kubiak, Krysia
281) LaCour Jr., Edmund G.
282) Lakin, Sophia Lin
283) Lancaster, Riley K.
284) Landry, Hon. Jeff
285) LaPorta, Jordan A.
286) Lawkowski, Gary M.
287) Lawsen, Nicki Leili
288) Lawyers Democracy Fund
289) Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights under Law
290) League of Women Voters of Alabama
291) League of Women Voters of the United States
292) Leahy, Sen. Patrick
293) Lee, Theresa J.
294) Lewis, Davante
295) Lewis, Patrick T.
C-15 of 30
App. 351
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 17 of 57
Caster v. Secretary of State for the State of Ala., No. 26-11828
296) Li, Michael C.
297) Livengood, Rebecca
298) Livingston, Sen. Steve
299) Lockhead, Tanner
300) Louard, Janette
301) Love, Rodney Allen
302) Lowe, Clee Earnest
303) Madduri, Lalitha D.
304) Malhi, Jaywin Singh
305) Manasco, Hon. Anna M.
306) Marcus, Hon. Stanley
307) Marshall, Hon. Steve
308) Marshall, Mary E.
309) Masuoka, Natalie
310) Mauldin, Dylan
311) Mayer Brown, LLP
312) Maynard Cooper & Gale, P.C.
313) McClendon, former Sen. Jim
314) McCotter, R. Trent
315) McCrary, Peyton
C-16 of 30
App. 352
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 18 of 57
Caster v. Secretary of State for the State of Ala., No. 26-11828
316) McDougle, Sen. Ryan
317) McDowell, Ephraim
318) McKay, Charles A.
319) McKinney, Charles
320) McPhee, Shae
321) McSherry, Erin K.
322) McTootle, Arielle
323) Medina, Richard A.
324) Meehan, Taylor
325) Meeks, Rep. Gregory
326) Mehr, Benjamin I.
327) Mellett, Timothy F.
328) Melton Espy & Williams PC
329) Menefee, Christian D.
330) Menefee, Larry T.
331) Merrill, Hon. John H.
332) Messick, Misty S. Fairbanks
333) Michel, Arturo, G.
334) Michel, Christopher G.
335) Miller, Jonathan B.
C-17 of 30
App. 353
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 19 of 57
Caster v. Secretary of State for the State of Ala., No. 26-11828
336) Milligan, Evan
337) Mills, Christopher E.
338) Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
339) Mink, Richard
340) Mollman, Alison Nicole
341) Moore, Rep. Barry
342) Moore, Rep. Timothy K.
343) Moorer, Hon. Terry F.
344) Moorer, Regina M.
345) Morgan, Anne L.
346) Morrisey, Hon. Patrick
347) Morrison & Foerster LLP
348) Moten, Derryn
349) Murkowski, Sen. Lisa
350) Murrill, Elizabeth B.
351) NAACP (National Headquarters)
352) NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
353) NAACP Louisiana State Conference
354) Naifeh, Stuart
355) Nairne, Dorothy
C-18 of 30
App. 354
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 20 of 57
Caster v. Secretary of State for the State of Ala., No. 26-11828
356) Natarajan, Ranjana
357) National Congress of American Indians
358) National Republican Redistricting Trust
359) Native American Rights Fund
360) Neas, Ralph G.
361) Neiman, Jr., John C.
362) Nelson, Janai S.
363) Neronha, Hon. Peter F.
364) Nessel, Hon. Dana
365) Nwachukwu, Jennifer
366) O’Connor, Hon. John
367) O’Melveny & Myers LLP
368) O’Neil, David A.
369) Okinedo, Denzel Efemena
370) Olson, Lyndsey M.
371) Olsson, Jon
372) Ordway, Demian A.
373) Osher, Daniel C.
374) Overing, Robert M.
375) Palmer, Rep. Gary
C-19 of 30
App. 355
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 21 of 57
Caster v. Secretary of State for the State of Ala., No. 26-11828
376) Palmore, Joseph R.
377)
Pantazis, Christina Rossi
378)
Pardue, Andrew
379)
Park, Jr., John J.
380)
Parker, Barbara J.
381)
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
382)
Paxton, Hon. Ken
383)
Penn & Seaborn LLC
384)
Penn, Myron C.
385)
Pérez, Efrén
386)
Persily, Dr. Nathaniel
387)
Peterson, Hon. Doug
388)
Phatak, Ashwin P.
389)
Phelan, Rep. Dade
390)
Phillips, Graham E.
391)
Phillips, Kaylan
392)
Platkin, Hon. Matthew J.
393)
Pol, Jr., Rodney
394)
Polio, Dennis
395)
Posimato, Joseph N.
C-20 of 30
App. 356
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 22 of 57
Caster v. Secretary of State for the State of Ala., No. 26-11828
396)
Powell, Manasseh
397) Power Coalition for Equity and Justice
398) Prelogar, Hon. Elizabeth B.
399) Presidential Coalition
400) Price, Savannah
401) Price, Shannon
402) Pringle, Rep. Chris
403) Project on Fair Representation
404) Pryor, Thomas K.
405) Public Interest Legal Foundation
406) Public Rights Project
407) Quigley, William P.
408) Quillen, Henry C.
409) Quinn, Connor, Weaver, Davies & Rouco LLP
410) Racine, Hon. Karl A.
411) Raoul, Hon. Kwame
412) Reed, Dr. Joe L.
413) Reed, Mayor Steven L.
414) Relman Colfax PLLC
415) Republican National Committee
C-21 of 30
App. 357
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 23 of 57
Caster v. Secretary of State for the State of Ala., No. 26-11828
416) Reyes, Bernadette
417) Reyes, Hon. Sean
418) Richardson, Valencia
419) Riggs, Allison
420) Riser, R. Volney
421) Robinson, Press
422) Roeck, Victoria
423) Rogers, Rep. Mike
424) Rokita, Hon. Todd
425) Rosborough, Davin M.
426) Rosenberg, Ezra D.
427) Rosenblum, Hon. Ellen F.
428) Ross, Deuel
429) Rouco, Richard P.
430) Roy, Marissa
431) Rubinstein, Reed D.
432) Rudensky, Yurij
433) Rupp, Michelle
434) Rutahindurwa, Makeba
435) Rutledge, Hon. Leslie
C-22 of 30
App. 358
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 24 of 57
Caster v. Secretary of State for the State of Ala., No. 26-11828
436) Sabel Law Firm, LLC
437) Sabel, Jr., Mark W.
438) Sadasivan, Kathryn
439) Sagar, Jo-Ann Tamila
440) Sanders, former Sen. Henry “Hank”
441) Sanders, Jarmal Jabbar
442) Savitt, Adam P.
443) Schmitt, Hon. Eric
444) Schnapper-Casteras, John Paul
445) Schnapper-Casteras PLLC
446) Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP
447) Schwarzenegger, Hon. Arnold
448) Scodro, Michael A.
449) Sedwick, Olivia N.
450) Segura, Gary M.
451) Seiss, Benjamin M.
452) Sellers, Rep. Patrick
453) Sells, Bryan L.
454) Sen, Maya
455) Sewell, Rep. Terri
C-23 of 30
App. 359
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 25 of 57
Caster v. Secretary of State for the State of Ala., No. 26-11828
456) Shapiro, Carolyn E.
457) Shapiro, Hon. Josh
458) Shea, James L.
459) Sheehy, Shawn T.
460) Shikada, Hon. Holly T.
461) Short, Caren E.
462) Sidley Austin LLP
463) Sims, Ambrose
464) Sinclair, Winfield J.
465) Singleton, Sen. Bobby
466) Slagter, Paulina
467) Slay, Leonette W.
468) Smith, Brenton M.
469) Smith, Paul M.
470) Smith, Ronald
471) Smitherman, Sen. Rodger
472) Southern Coalition for Social Justice
473) Southern Poverty Law Center
474) Spero Law LLC
475) Spies, Charles R.
C-24 of 30
App. 360
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 26 of 57
Caster v. Secretary of State for the State of Ala., No. 26-11828
476) Spital, Samuel
477) Stand-Up Mobile
478) State of Arizona
479) State of Arkansas
480) State of California
481) State of Colorado
482) State of Connecticut
483) State of Delaware
484) State of Georgia
485) State of Hawaii
486) State of Illinois
487) State of Indiana
488) State of Louisiana
489) State of Maine
490) State of Maryland
491) State of Michigan
492) State of Minnesota
493) State of Mississippi
494) State of Missouri
495) State of Montana
C-25 of 30
App. 361
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 27 of 57
Caster v. Secretary of State for the State of Ala., No. 26-11828
496) State of Nebraska
497) State of Nevada
498) State of New Jersey
499) State of New York
500) State of Oklahoma
501) State of Oregon
502) State of Rhode Island
503) State of South Carolina
504) State of Texas
505) State of Utah
506) State of Vermont
507) State of Washington
508) State of West Virginia
509) State of Wisconsin
510) States United Democracy Center
511) Stein, Gary
512) Steiner, Neil A.
513) Stephanopoulos, Nicholas O.
514) Stewart, Celina
515) Stewart, Shelita M.
C-26 of 30
App. 362
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 28 of 57
Caster v. Secretary of State for the State of Ala., No. 26-11828
516) Still, W. Edward
517) Stock, Danielle A. Gentin
518) Stone, Khadidah
519) Strong, Rep. Dale
520) Sun, Christine P.
521) Sundararajan, Anagha
522) Tan, Caroline W.
523) Taticchi, Mark D.
524) Thomas, Wendell
525) Thompson, Blayne R.
526) Thornton, J. Mills
527) Tong, Hon. William
528) Torchinsky, Jason Brett
529) Travis County, Texas
530) Trento, Andrea W.
531) Taunton, Michael P.
532) Tuetken, Adam J.
533) Turner, Reginald M.
534) Turrill, Michael Lovejoy
535) Tyson, Hon. Sheila D.
C-27 of 30
App. 363
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 29 of 57
Caster v. Secretary of State for the State of Ala., No. 26-11828
536) U. W. Clemon, LLC
537) UCLA Voting Rights Project
538) Underwood, Barbara D.
539) United States Department of Justice
540) United States of America
541) Vale, Judith N.
542) Van Zile, Caroline S.
543) Vance, Robert Smith
544) Veroff, Julie
545) Wahl, John
546) Waknin, Sonni
547) Walker, Andrew
548) Walker, J. Dorman
549) Walker, Johannah
550) Wallace, Jordan, Ratliff and Brandt, LLC
551) Ward, Mayor Jason Q.
552) Warrington, David A.
553) Warshaw, Christopher S.
554) Washington, Alice
555) Washington, Brian E.
C-28 of 30
App. 364
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 30 of 57
Caster v. Secretary of State for the State of Ala., No. 26-11828
556) Watkins, Hon. W. Keith
557) Webster, Anjali D.
558) Weisberg, Liza
559) Weiser, Hon. Philip J.
560) Weitzman, Samuel E.
561) Welborn, Kaitlin
562) Weld, Hon. William F.
563) Wenger, Edward M.
564) West, Marisa
565) Whatley, Jr., Joe R.
566) Whatley Kallas LLP
567) Whisler, Megan
568) White Arnold & Dowd, PC
569) White, J. Mark
570) Whitman, Hon. Christine Todd
571) Widell, Jr., Robert W.
572) Wides, Burton V.
573) Wiggins Childs Pantazis Fisher & Goldfarb, LLC
574) Wilcox, Rep. J.T.
575) Williams, Ayana D.
C-29 of 30
App. 365
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 31 of 57
Caster v. Secretary of State for the State of Ala., No. 26-11828
576) Williams, Edward
577) Williams, James R.
578) Williams, Jonathan L.
579) Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
580) Wilson, Hon. Alan
581) Wilson, Thomas A.
582) Winfrey, Adia
583) Woodard, J. Scott
584) Woodfin, Mayor Randall
585) Wydra, Elizabeth B.
586) Young, Hon. Susanne R.
587) Zepeda-Millán, Chris
588) Ziegler, Donna R.
589) Zimmermann, Diandra “Fu” Debrosse
Counsel further certifies that no additional publicly traded company or corporation has an interest in the outcome of this case or appeal.
Respectfully submitted this 27th day of May, 2026.
s/ A. Barrett Bowdre
A. Barrett Bowdre
Counsel for Secretary of State Wes Allen
C-30 of 30
App. 366
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 32 of 57
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Certificate of Interested Persons .............................................................................. 1
Table of Contents ...................................................................................................... i
Table of Authorities ................................................................................................. ii
Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
Background .............................................................................................................. 3
Argument.................................................................................................................. 8
I.
II.
This Court will likely reverse the district court’s §2
holding. .............................................................................................. 10
A.
The district court flouted Callais when it
discarded permissible districting criteria as
“illegitimate” and applied a racial criterion
instead. .................................................................................... 10
B.
The district court did not find racial-bloc voting
that cannot also be explained by partisan
affiliation. ................................................................................ 17
The equities warrant a stay. ............................................................... 19
A.
The district court turned Purcell on its head by
using it as a sword to impose its court-drawn
plan on the eve of an election. ................................................ 19
B.
The balance of harms and the public interest
warrant a stay. ......................................................................... 20
Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 20
Certificate of Compliance ...................................................................................... 22
Certificate of Service ............................................................................................. 23
i
App. 367
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 33 of 57
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Abbott v. LULAC,
146 S. Ct. 418 (2025) .................................................................................... 19, 20
Abbott v. Perez,
585 U.S. 579 (2018) .................................................................................... 2, 3, 20
Alexander v. SC Conf. of NAACP,
602 U.S. 1 (2024) .................................................................................................11
Allen v. Milligan,
599 U.S. 1 (2023) .................................................................................. 1, 2, 11, 14
Banerian v. Benson,
589 F. Supp. 3d 735 (W.D. Mich. 2022) .............................................................12
Hewitt v. United States,
606 U.S. 419 (2025) .............................................................................................19
Holder v. Hall,
512 U.S. 874 (1994) ...............................................................................................3
Louisiana v. Callais,
146 S. Ct. 1131 (2026) .................................................................... 1-3, 6, 8, 10-18
LULAC v. Perry,
548 U.S. 399 (2006) .............................................................................................11
Purcell v. Gonzalez,
549 U.S. 1 (2006) ...................................................................................... 3, 19, 20
Republican Nat’l Comm. v. Democratic Nat’l Comm.,
589 U.S. 423 (2020) .............................................................................................19
Shaw v. Reno,
509 U.S. 630 (1993) .............................................................................................15
ii
App. 368
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 34 of 57
Other Authorities
Alabama House Special Session 2026,
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tptIfi94AWk#t=3h21m44s (May 6, 2026) .............6
Alabama Senate Special Session 2026,
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ecxRAvdl1U#t=1h14m26s (May 8, 2026) ...........6
iii
App. 369
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 35 of 57
INTRODUCTION1
The Court should immediately stay the district court’s preliminary injunction
precluding Alabama from using its congressional districts enacted in 2023 to address
the Supreme Court’s concerns in Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. 1 (2023). Among other
faults, the district court’s injunction halts ongoing election preparations for reasons
that defy Louisiana v. Callais, 146 S. Ct. 1131 (2026).
The throughline of the district court’s ruling is this: When the State redistricted in 2023, it had no choice but to crack the Gulf Coast and segregate white
voters from black voters into different districts stretching the width of Alabama. Anything else, the district court has now twice held, would violate not only §2 but also
the Constitution. Why? Because the district court believed that its preliminary-injunction ruling about a predecessor plan required the State to draw a second majority-minority district in any future redistricting legislation. But nothing in those preliminary proceedings on the 2021 Plan precluded Alabama from trying to navigate
1
Secretary Allen is contemporaneously seeking a stay from the Supreme Court in
Milligan v. Allen, No. 2:21-cv-1530 (N.D. Ala.) (three-judge court) and Singleton v.
Allen, No. 2:21-cv-1291 (N.D. Ala.) (three-judge court). The opinion and order appealed from in this case is materially the same as those in Milligan and Singleton,
except that the Caster order is signed by a single judge (incorporating the orders in
Milligan and Singleton) and is appealable to this Court and the Milligan and Singleton orders are signed by a three-judge court and are appealable to the Supreme Court.
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1253, 2284(a). In the State’s earlier appeals in this litigation, this
Court held Caster in abeyance when the State moved for a stay pending appeal from
the U.S. Supreme Court.
1
App. 370
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 36 of 57
the “competing hazards of liability,” Abbott v. Perez, 585 U.S. 579, 587 (2018), with
new legislation. The 2023 Plan addressed the Supreme Court’s concerns about the
State’s prioritization of core retention in 2021 at the cost of splitting the Black Belt
region. Allen, 599 U.S. at 21-22. So in 2023, new legislation split that region as little
as possible, while also keeping together the Gulf Coast as the State had done for 50
years.
Callais vindicates Alabama’s position on the lawfulness of the 2023 Plan, yet
the district court decided in one week that Callais changed nothing. The court did
not hold Plaintiffs to their burden to bring alternative maps that “meet all the State’s
legitimate districting objectives,” 146 S. Ct. at 1159, because in its view, Alabama’s
lawful and longstanding priorities were not “legitimate,” App.55. It did not matter
to the district court that drawing an additional race-based district came at the cost of
sacrificing communities of interest and pairing incumbents. Id. If anything is “entirely clearcut after Callais,” App.12, it is that the 2023 Plan should never have been
enjoined in the first place.
Worse, the district court doubled down on its constitutional holding that finds
no home in our Constitution: that Alabama intentionally discriminated by refusing
to intentionally discriminate. The district court faulted the State for denying “opportunity” to minority voters and “diluting” votes without once acknowledging how
Callais itself refuted the district court’s pre-Callais holding on that score. See
2
App. 371
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 37 of 57
Callais, 146 S. Ct. at 1154-55. It cannot be that the only constitutional map for the
State to have drawn this redistricting cycle was one where white voters are drawn
into white districts and given white representatives and black voters “drawn into
‘black districts’ and given ‘black representatives,’” a scheme “repugnant” to the
Constitution itself. Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874, 905-06 (1994) (Thomas, J., concurring in the judgment).
A stay is warranted so that Alabama is not again precluded from using its
legislatively enacted 2023 Plan based on a decision that defies Callais, manipulates
the Purcell principle, and offends the Constitution’s promise of equal protection for
all. So that the State can use the 2023 Plan in the 2026 elections, the State Defendants
respectfully request a ruling from this Court as soon as practicable. In a previous
iteration of this case, this Court held the appeal in abeyance within one day of the
filing of the motion to stay. See Order of January 28, 2022, Caster v. Merrill, No.
22-10272.
BACKGROUND
Alabama seeks to use its own map to conduct elections this year because “the
inability to enforce its duly enacted plans clearly inflicts irreparable harm on the
State.” Perez, 585 U.S. at 602 n.17. The chief obstacle remains the district court’s
view that the State defied a preliminary injunction regarding a since-repealed redistricting plan when it enacted an entirely new redistricting plan that, by the district
3
App. 372
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 38 of 57
court’s lights, was a “purposeful attempt to rob Black Alabamians of an equal opportunity under the law to elect candidates of their choice”—all because the State
declined to district on the basis of race, persisted in keeping a community of interest
whole, and declined to redistrict black voters in Mobile with black voters 200-some
miles away. DE490:15-16.2
1. In 2021, Alabama redistricted, and litigation ensued immediately. Plaintiffs in three related actions—Caster, Milligan, and Singleton—alleged that the 2021
Plan simultaneously violated §2 of the Voting Rights Act by considering race too
little and violated the Constitution by considering race too much. DE107:34-41. The
district court granted a preliminary injunction on the ground that the 2021 Plan likely
violated §2 and did not reach the constitutional claim. Id. at 214-17. The Supreme
Court upheld the preliminary injunction against the 2021 Plan based on the preliminary record before the Court at that time. 599 U.S. at 42. The Court faulted the 2021
Plan for prioritizing core retention at the cost of splintering the Black Belt region.
See id. at 21-22.
Rather than continue to litigate the lawfulness of some of those features of the
2021 Plan, the State chose to redistrict in direct response to Allen. That 2023 Plan
departed from past redistricting plans and reunified the Black Belt in as few districts
2
“DE” citations refer to entries in Allen v. Milligan, No. 2:21-cv-1536, and to the
ECF pagination.
4
App. 373
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 39 of 57
as possible. At the same time, the State continued to adhere to other nonracial political priorities—namely declining to pair incumbents or to split the Gulf Coast, so as
to ensure that a community of interest would remain unified in one district and represented by one voice in Congress as it had for over 50 years. DE481:246. And since
it had become a matter of dispute, the Legislature made a record to establish what is
obvious to longtime Alabamians and first-time visitors alike: that the Gulf Coast is
a unique community of interest. DE490:557-60 (legislative findings).
That wasn’t good enough, according to the district court. Section 2 required
the State to split the Gulf Coast to create an additional majority-minority district “or
something quite close to it.” DE490:517 (cleaned up). Worse, the State’s desire to
keep the Gulf Coast unified—while also now keeping the Black Belt unified too—
was invidious racial discrimination. Although the district court recognized in earlier
proceedings that keeping the Gulf Coast together accrued “political advantages …
for those areas,” and although it “expect[ed] that the Legislature [would] assign them
great weight” in its next map, DE107:170-71, when the Legislature pursued those
advantages and assigned that great weight to the Gulf Coast in the 2023 Plan, the
court found racial animus. What the district court said it expected in 2022, it found
“disturb[ing]” in 2023 (DE272:8) and again in 2025 (DE490:429). The legislative
findings about the Gulf Coast were deemed evidence of a racist desire “to prescribe
5
App. 374
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 40 of 57
a majority-White congressional district” and to “exalt[ ]” it “over every other districting principle, including compliance with federal law.” DE490:429-30.
Based on those findings (and before Callais), the district court entered judgment against the State for violating §2, DE490, retained jurisdiction through 2030,
DE509.
2. Alabama asked the Supreme Court to summarily reverse or grant plenary
review of the injunctions precluding the use of the 2023 Plan. Nos. 25-243, 25-273,
25-274. After the Supreme Court’s decision in Callais, the State moved for expedited consideration because Callais confirmed the district court should have required
Plaintiffs to account for the State’s redistricting priorities before enjoining use of the
2023 Plan. Around the same time, the Legislature passed a law to provide for a special primary election in the event that injunctions against the 2023 Plan were lifted.
In addition to citing traditional districting principles and political goals, legislators
defending the 2023 Plan explained that it had been “drawn in a partisan way” to
“benefit Republicans,”3 and that it gave a better “opportunity for the Republicans to
win.”4
3
Alabama
Senate
Special
Session
2026,
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ecxRAvdl1U#t=1h14m26s (May 8, 2026) (Senator
Albritton).
4
Alabama
House
Special
Session
2026,
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tptIfi94AWk#t=3h21m44s (May 6, 2026) (Representative Pringle).
6
App. 375
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 41 of 57
On May 11, 2026, the Supreme Court granted the State’s motion to expedite,
vacated the injunctions, and issued its judgment forthwith. See, e.g., Order, Allen v.
Milligan, No. 25-274 (U.S. May 11, 2026).
3. With the injunctions vacated, the Governor announced a special primary
election under the 2023 Plan for affected districts. App.113. The Secretary of State
notified the public, posted the 2023 Plan on the office’s official government
webpage, and began communicating with vendors and local election officials.
App.113-14. The Governor issued a new administrative calendar for the primary.
App.114-15. Candidates qualified to run for Congress under the 2023 Plan. App.115.
And the local boards of registrars in each county began the work to understand which
voters would need to be moved to comply with the 2023 Plan. App.115-17, 123-25.
Meanwhile, Plaintiffs moved for a renewed injunction, and the district court
held a hearing on Friday, May 22, at which the Secretary of State’s Director of Elections, Jeff Elrod, was ordered to appear and testify. DE528.
Director Elrod testified that the State could implement the 2023 Plan. He
acknowledged that “[w]hile it is an aggressive timeline, I think it is safe to say that
registrars could get done with what they have assigned.” App.236. All but three of
the affected counties can reassign their voters by “mass change”—i.e., all voters in
the county would be reassigned simultaneously to the new district. App.120-21. Director Elrod testified that even the three split counties could complete their
7
App. 376
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 42 of 57
assignments in time, adding that computerized mapping systems and vendor support
are more common today than just a few years ago. App.121-23, 130. Alabama has
the tools and capacity to accomplish the reassignment process.
4. Nonetheless—with no new evidentiary showing after Callais—the district
court yesterday entered an order again preliminarily enjoining the use of the 2023
Plan. See App.1-102. As for Callais, the court concluded “Alabama cannot use Callais to legitimize its pre-Callais decision[.]” App.44. Even after yesterday’s order, it
remains undisputed that an additional majority-minority district cannot be drawn
without spitting the Gulf Coast and separating that region’s black voters and white
voters. App.32. To the district court, that failure of proof was just evidence that the
State’s criteria were not “legitimate,” so it granted preliminary relief on §2 grounds
as well. App.55.
ARGUMENT
In Callais, the Court held that §2 claims require alternative maps that “meet
all the State’s legitimate districting objectives … just as well.” 146 S. Ct. at 1159.
Nevertheless, the district court has found again that the 2023 Plan was discriminatory at the time—even if not today, after Callais. App.43-44. But it’s the same Constitution. The 2023 Plan was lawful then, and it is lawful now.
The district court enjoined Alabama’s Plan without putting Plaintiffs to the
evidentiary test that Callais says is now required to “ensure[ ] that § 2 of the Voting
8
App. 377
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 43 of 57
Rights Act does not exceed Congress’s authority under § 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment.” Callais, 146 S. Ct. at 1156. After a full trial in 2025, it is undisputed that no
alternative to the State’s map “achieve[s] all the political goals of the Legislature.”
DE490:525; see also DE490:345. Those goals included (1) drawing the Gulf Coast
counties in one district; (2) reunifying the Black Belt region by placing the Black
Belt counties in as few districts as possible; and (3) avoiding contests between incumbents. The first has been a goal of the Legislature for 50 years. The second became a goal after the district court held it was “important” in January 2022.
DE107:155; see id. at 156, 164-65, 169. And the third is a “traditional” factor, Callais, 146 S. Ct. at 1156, especially where threatened incumbents share their party
with the redistricting legislature. The district court threw all that out the window—
substituting its own prerogatives for those of the legislature. E.g., App.55 (refusing
to treat the Gulf Coast, even though a conceded community of interest, as a “‘legitimate’ objective that an illustrative plan must meet”). As to the remainder of the
updated Gingles test, the district court refashioned the trial record but could not close
the gap between what Plaintiffs brought to trial before Callais and what Callais now
demands.
9
App. 378
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
I.
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 44 of 57
This Court will likely reverse the district court’s §2 holding.
A.
The district court flouted Callais when it discarded permissible
districting criteria as “illegitimate” and applied a racial criterion instead.
Under the updated Gingles framework, Plaintiffs must bring illustrative maps
that “meet all the State’s legitimate districting objectives, including traditional districting criteria and the State’s specific political goals.” Callais, 146 S. Ct. at 1159.
They did not. As the district court found in 2025, no alternative in the record
achieved the State’s objectives. E.g., DE490:345, 525. They all failed to keep the
Gulf Coast in one congressional district, and they failed to protect incumbents. They
sacrificed those goals to combine so-called “Black Mobile” (DE272:158) with parts
of the Black Belt to form a new majority-black district. Lacking comparator maps,
Plaintiffs could not begin to show discrimination, and their alternatives could not
have been adopted by the State. But as if Callais never happened, the district court
held that Plaintiffs had drawn “an additional reasonably configured majority-Black
district,” even if that meant cracking the Gulf Coast and ignoring the State’s other
political goals including not pairing incumbents. App.54.
1. The Gulf Coast. It is undisputed that keeping the Gulf Coast together in a
congressional district is one of “the State’s specified political goals,” Callais, 146 S.
Ct. at 1159, and that no alternative to the 2023 Plan meets that goal. The district
court cannot ignore its earlier findings to transform a well-established and long-held
10
App. 379
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 45 of 57
goal of the Legislature into a “novel and exacting instruction [ ]” cooked up to defy
the courts. App.38. To the contrary, “maintaining communities of interest” falls well
within the class of “traditional districting principles.” LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399,
433 (2006). And “§2 never requires adoption of districts that violate traditional redistricting principles.” Allen, 599 U.S. at 30. Consider: If the State had abandoned
this commitment in order to “combine[ ] two farflung segments of a racial group,”
LULAC, 548 U.S. at 433, it would have found itself in the same position as Louisiana, which violated the Constitution by drawing a “second majority-minority district
… [that] stretche[d] some 250 miles” across the State. Callais, 146 S. Ct. at 1152.
Declining to prioritize race, the 2023 Plan did not violate §2.
Left intact, the district court’s preliminary-injunction opinion will become the
roadmap for evading Callais: In just two paragraphs, the district court discarded the
Legislature’s goal on the ground that it “was the linchpin of a calculated effort to
discriminate based on race.” App.55. This new opinion accuses the State of “‘offensive and demeaning’ conduct,” even though federal courts “should not be quick to
hurl such accusations at the political branches.” Alexander v. SC Conf. of NAACP,
602 U.S. 1, 11 (2024). The accusation is also false: The Gulf Coast has been kept
together for 50 years, and it was one of the State’s primary defenses when this lawsuit was first filed in 2021; it was not “adopted … for unconstitutional purposes” in
2023. App.55. And if the court was not willing to “accuse any legislator of racism,”
11
App. 380
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 46 of 57
App.31, it should have been even more loathe to accuse the whole Legislature of
racial animus. There can be no comparison between the Legislature’s interest in giving a unified voice to the Gulf region and “clos[ing] public schools” in 1964 to thwart
“desegregat[ion].” App.56.
In the end, the Legislature adopted this political goal long before the 2021
Plan, readopted it in the 2021 and 2023 Plans, and has maintained a consistent position throughout this litigation that the Gulf Coast is a nonracial community of interest. That shouldn’t even be controversial, and certainly should be entitled to some
deference by a federal court under the presumption of good faith. While the district
court decided for itself that splitting the Gulf Coast wouldn’t “necessarily harm [it],”
DE490:355, that’s a political question for a political body. Accord Banerian v. Benson, 589 F. Supp. 3d 735, 738 (W.D. Mich. 2022).
2. Incumbent Protection. A second criterion which the 2023 Plan achieved
but alternatives did not was protecting incumbent representatives whom “the legislature sought to protect.” Callais, 146 S. Ct. at 1161; see App.88 (SB5) (“The congressional districting plan shall not pair incumbent members of Congress within the
same district.”); DE490:86 (State’s mapmaker: “I was looking at … not pairing incumbents, which, obviously we had incumbents that could have been paired there in
terms of Barry Moore in Coffee County and Jerry Carl in Mobile[.]”). In its 2025
injunction, the district court refused to give “weight” to incumbency because it
12
App. 381
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 47 of 57
thought that would “defeat the Voting Rights Act.” DE490:361. In its 2026 injunction, the district court found that illustrative maps were good enough because they
“protect[ ] all incumbents except one.” App.56-57 (emphasis added).
But §2 liability cannot be proven with an illustrative map that “fail[s] to meet
the State’s political goals, including incumbency protection.” Callais, 146 S. Ct. at
1161. This failure caused a direct and undeniable harm to the State, as one of its
incumbents “was not reelected to Congress.” DE490:361. As in Callais, “because
the [ ] illustrative maps failed to protect all the incumbents that the State sought to
shield, the plaintiffs did not meet their burden on [the first Gingles] precondition.”
Callais, 146 S. Ct. at 1161.
Yesterday, the district court addressed incumbents in one sentence, finding
that the State’s allegedly “calculated effort to discriminate based on race [ ] also
included a novel categorical bar on pairing incumbents.” App.55. Of course, incumbent protection was hardly novel in 2023. See, e.g., DE107:220 (2021 guidelines).
The court clarified in a footnote that other States can constitutionally “protect[ ] incumbents” but not Alabama “on these unique facts and in the unique posture of these
cases.” App.56 n.17. This inexplicable holding contradicts Callais; nothing supports
a finding that the Legislature’s desire to protect Rep. Jerry Carl and Rep. Barry
Moore was “pretext for an unconstitutional end” or otherwise “intentionally discriminat[ory].” App.56.
13
App. 382
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 48 of 57
3. The Black Belt. After the 2021 Plan was preliminarily enjoined in part
because “[t]here would be a split community of interest” in the Black Belt, Allen,
599 U.S. at 21, the Legislature made it a non-negotiable priority to put the Black
Belt in as few districts as possible. The district court erred by crediting Gingles maps
that failed on this score and by transforming this nonracial criterion into a racial one.
The district court reaffirmed its racialized approach to the Black Belt yesterday, claiming that the Legislature did not “treat[] the Black Belt and Gulf Coast
equally” because “half the Black Belt Counties were placed in majority-White districts.” App.35. In 2025, it described “respect” for the Black Belt in terms of “Black
voting strength.” DE490:360-61. It cast aside the Gulf Coast objective on the ground
that splitting a “majority-White district” “precipitates no such racially discriminatory harm.” Id. Not only was this reasoning circular—under Callais, “Black voting
strength” (id.) cannot be used to define the “baseline … chance” to elect one’s preferred candidates, Callais, 146 S. Ct. at 1154—it clearly turned the State’s nonracial
districting criterion into a racial one. See App.34 (criticizing in its Arlington Heights
analysis the fact that the 2023 Plan “placed nine of the eighteen Black Belt counties
in majority-White districts”).
4. The district court places extraordinary weight on its belief that Plaintiffs’
experts and the Special Master did not draw “boundaries … on the basis of race” or
“display racial demographic data while drawing districts.” App.18; see App.50-54.
14
App. 383
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 49 of 57
It says with confidence that “there is no world in which we … demanded the State
do anything noxious.” App.43; see Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 643 (1993) (recognizing racial gerrymanders as “odious”). But even if the Special Master’s “raceblind” laundering of Plaintiffs’ race-based formula were credited, that merely shows
“that the State could create an additional majority-minority district.” Callais, 146 S.
Ct. at 1158. The district court was wrong to think that just because a “race-blind”
map could be drawn, that “disproves that anything unconstitutional was required.”
App.43.
Here, the alternative maps are unconstitutional because they advance a racial
goal at the expense of the State’s nonracial goals. The process may be called “raceblind” in the narrow sense that the mapmakers attested they did not look at the racial
demographics of voting precincts—although that means little if, for example, they
looked at other race-based maps that already provided the formula—but they still
used race as an unbending and non-negotiable criterion. See, e.g., DE590:325 (recounting Dr. Duchin’s testimony that “race is a consideration” of hers but just
“doesn’t dominate others”); App.52 (noting that Dr. Duchin “periodically checked”
the racial parameters of the plan as she was drawing, just emphasizing it wasn’t part
of her “granular” process). Plaintiffs and the district court directed their mapmakers
to draw a map with two majority-minority congressional districts, even after it was
15
App. 384
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 50 of 57
conceded that two such districts could be achieved only by jettisoning the State’s
nonracial goals. But see Callais, 146 S. Ct. at 1159.
Consequently, the district court’s assurance that Plaintiffs had not offered (and
it was not ordering) a racial gerrymander was built on a faulty premise. That Dr.
Duchin could draw “literally thousands” of maps with two majority-minority districts without holding constant the State’s race-neutral principles is legally meaningless. App.52; see Callais, 146 S. Ct. at 1159. She trained her algorithms to hit a racial
target before hitting the State’s nonracial targets. Contra Callais, 146 S. Ct. at 1159.
With those parameters set, the allegedly “race-blind” process was not race blind at
all. Just like in Robinson, race was baked into the process because the requirement
to “configure [a district] to achieve a black voting-age population over 50%” was an
“express acknowledgment that race played a role in the drawing of district lines.”
Callais, 146 S. Ct. at 1161.
That was error, even if it could be believed that the mapmakers just happened
to pluck the black voters in Mobile out of District 1 to join them with voters on the
other side of the State in District 2. Although the State need not prove that the mapmakers used race at a “granular” level, App.52, this case is just like “in Louisiana,
where the geographic dispersion of the Black population required a remedial district
to ‘slic[e] through’ multiple metropolitan areas to scoop up pockets of predominantly Black populations,” contra App.54-55. There was no other reason to draw
16
App. 385
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 51 of 57
lines around “Black Mobile” (DE490:263) and connect it with Montgomery and the
eastern border of the State hundreds of miles away.
B.
The district court did not find racial-bloc voting that cannot also
be explained by partisan affiliation.
In 2025, the district court found that it “cannot separate voters’ racial considerations from their party affiliations” based on “this evidentiary record.” DE490:401.
Recounting the same evidence in 2026, the district court found that it could disentangle party and race. App.57-61. That was clear error, because it continues to infer
racial bloc voting from analysis of just a few elections spanning decades. Its new
holding committed legal error too. Even if there were some racial effect in some
elections—after controlling for party—the effect of partisan affiliation to drive voting dwarfs it. There is no evidence that a white majority votes “as a bloc … to defeat”
black candidates as was the case when the Voting Rights Act was enacted. Callais,
146 S. Ct. at 1146.
The district court did not seriously commit itself to disentangling race and
politics as Callais directed. From the jump, it wrote that the factor is “racially polarized voting”—as it used to be before Callais—and cited evidence about the electoral
success of black candidates without controlling for party. App.20; App.57-58 (“We
adhere to our earlier findings about the evidence of these patterns.”). But evidence
that “most Black Alabamians are Democrats[ ] and the Republican Party is Alabama’s dominant political party,” App.61, is not “substantial evidence that Black
17
App. 386
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 52 of 57
Alabamians have less opportunity than other Alabamians to elect representatives of
their choice,” App.20. That conflation of race and politics does not survive Callais.
146 S. Ct. at 1159-60.
The district court’s quick attempt to disentangle race and politics, on the heels
of Callais without any new evidence, was on the most threadbare record. The court
cited a CNN exit poll from the 2008 presidential election. App.58. It cited results
from the 2024 Republican primary in which white candidates outperformed black
candidates—without acknowledging or controlling for any other factors that could
have explained that outcome. Id. It cited two mayoral runoffs and a single democratic
congressional primary. Id. This is the sum total of the empirical evidence it used to
find a “stark pattern[ ]” that white voters vote as a bloc to defeat black candidates
for purposes of declaring the State’s congressional districts unlawful, App.61, while
waiving away the election of black Republicans in majority white districts, App.59,
n.18, among other substantial additional evidence presented by the State.
DE481:125-50. This was clear error. Plaintiffs must prove that polarization “cannot
be explained by partisan affiliation,” not that there exists some polarization in some
elections across multiple decades that might be explained by race. Callais, 146 S.
Ct. at 1159. If it worked that way, the existence of a handful of racist voters would
be enough to satisfy Gingles. But that would not at all reflect “circumstances [ ]
comparable to those in White [v. Regester].” Callais, 146 S. Ct. at 1162.
18
App. 387
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
II.
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 53 of 57
The equities warrant a stay.
A.
The district court turned Purcell on its head by using it as a
sword to impose its court-drawn plan on the eve of an election.
The district court declined to apply Purcell on the ground that there would be
administrative advantages and cost savings to using the court-drawn plan because
local registrars had not yet reassigned voters in accordance with the 2023 Plan.
App.8-11. But Purcell is a shield for legislatively enacted election rules, not courtimposed ones. It precludes “lower federal courts” from “alter[ing] the election rules
on the eve of an election.” Republican Nat’l Comm. v. Democratic Nat’l Comm.,
589 U.S. 423, 424 (2020); Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006). Recognizing that
States, not courts, have the expertise to set election rules, Purcell requires federal
courts to stay their hand. See Abbott v. LULAC, 146 S. Ct. 418, 419 (2025).
The 2023 Plan is a duly enacted Alabama statute. Ala. Code § 17-14-70. When
the Supreme Court vacated the district court’s injunction, the 2023 Plan had full
legal force—“as though the vacated order never occurred,” Hewitt v. United States,
606 U.S. 419, 431 (2025). State officials, local officials, parties, candidates, and voters understood the ramifications immediately because the Legislature had already
enacted a law providing for a special election under just this circumstance. See Ala.
Act No. 2026-612. By proclamation the day after the Supreme Court’s vacatur orders, the Governor announced a special primary and issued a writ of election. There
were new qualifying deadlines. Candidates may have stopped campaigning in their
19
App. 388
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 54 of 57
old districts—anticipating the new August primary under new district lines; voters
may not have voted or may have voted differently in the May primary with the understanding that it would not count. There were preparations and expectations that
the August special primary election would be conducted under the 2023 Plan—until
the district court stepped in.
It was always going to be a challenge for state election officials to hold a
special primary, but that was the Legislature’s and the Governor’s choice. If Purcell
means anything, it means the federal judiciary cannot pick and choose the logistical
costs the State is not entitled to accept.
B.
The balance of harms and the public interest warrant a stay.
Alabama and the public face irreparable harm unless a stay issues because
they will be unable to use the State’s “duly enacted plans” for the 2026 election.
Perez, 585 U.S. at 602 n.17. Worse still, voters will be forced to vote under a courtdrawn racially gerrymandered map that does not meet Alabama’s legitimate districting goals. The balance of the equities thus favor staying the district court’s last-minute intrusion into Alabama’s election. See LULAC, 146 S. Ct. at 419.
CONCLUSION
This Court should stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal. Alternatively, this Court should hold this appeal, including the motion to stay, in abeyance,
as it did in earlier litigation. An order holding the appeal in abeyance would allow
20
App. 389
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 55 of 57
the Supreme Court to consider Caster alongside Milligan and Singleton, as it did in
Allen.
Respectfully submitted,
Steve Marshall
Alabama Attorney General
s/ A. Barrett Bowdre
A. Barrett Bowdre
Solicitor General
Robert M. Overing
Principal Deputy Solicitor General
STATE OF ALABAMA
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
501 Washington Avenue
Montgomery, Alabama 36130-0152
Telephone: (334) 242-7300
Fax: (334) 353-8400
Barrett.Bowdre@AlabamaAG.gov
MAY 27, 2026
Counsel for Secretary of State Allen
21
App. 390
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 56 of 57
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
1.
This motion complies with Rule 27(d)(2) because it contains 4,905
words, including all headings, footnotes, and quotations, and excluding the parts of
the response exempted under Rule 32(f).
2.
In addition, this motion complies with the typeface and type style re-
quirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and (6) because it has been prepared in a
proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word for Office 365 in 14-point
Times New Roman font.
s/ A. Barrett Bowdre
A. Barrett Bowdre
Counsel for Secretary of State Allen
22
App. 391
USCA11 Case: 26-11828
Document: 5-1
Date Filed: 05/27/2026
Page: 57 of 57
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on May 27, 2026, I electronically filed this document using the
Court’s CM/ECF system, which will serve counsel of record.
s/ A. Barrett Bowdre
A. Barrett Bowdre
Counsel for Secretary of State Allen
23
App. 392
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.