2026-06-03T17:45:56.659Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/03/politics/supreme-court-alabama-voting-rights-act-redistricting
- 美国最高法院推翻了下级法院的裁决，该裁决此前认定阿拉巴马州的国会选区地图故意歧视黑人选民。
- 该裁决取消了自2024年起设立的第二个黑人选区，这可能意味着该州将在国会中失去一名民主党议员。
- 三名自由派大法官持反对意见，称最高法院在中期选举前夕纵容阿拉巴马州的对抗行为，进一步加剧了混乱。
AI生成的摘要经CNN编辑审核。
阿拉巴马州多次诉诸美国最高法院为其带有种族歧视色彩的国会选区地图辩护，提出了值得怀疑的主张并使用了不正当手段。
2023年，美国最高法院作出不利于阿拉巴马州的裁决。周二深夜，态度强硬的保守派多数派作出了相反的裁决，支持该州取消由美国特别地区法院认定为故意歧视的、由黑人参议员占据的席位的计划。
最高法院的行动印证了一个事实：该国的投票权保护并未如塞缪尔·阿利托大法官在4月底所坚称的那样“得到加强”。
它们已经被彻底抛弃。
美国最高法院在东部时间晚上9点后发布的无署名意见书传递出的信息是，各州如今在绘制削弱黑人和拉丁裔及其他少数族裔投票权的选区地图方面拥有极大的自由裁量权。即便所有迹象都表明并非如此，法官们也必须假定立法者在设计选区地图时是出于善意。
周二的裁决在未进行完整案情陈述或口头辩论的情况下仓促作出，标志着当代最高法院数十年来不断削弱投票权保护的趋势达到顶峰。
多数派推翻了由三名法官组成的下级法院于5月26日发布的详细78页意见书，该意见书强化了此前庭审中认定阿拉巴马州在重划选区时存在种族歧视的结论。阿拉巴马州始终为仅设有一个黑人选区的地图辩护，该州7个国会选区中仅有这一个选区能让黑人选民公平选举出心仪的候选人。
该州黑人人口约占27%。联邦特别法院曾下令增设第二个黑人选区。在多年的诉讼过程中，包括2023年下级法院的裁决被最高法院确认之后，阿拉巴马州议会一直想方设法规避增设第二个黑人选区的强制要求。
然而，周二深夜，最高法院多数派指责美国地区法院合议庭未能假定阿拉巴马州是出于“立法善意”行事。
事实上，下级法院在认定阿拉巴马州存在种族歧视性选票稀释行为之前，曾试图给予立法者疑罪从无的待遇。当立法者将黑人选民集中在单个选区，或者分散他们的选票以削弱其整体投票权时，就会出现这种选票稀释情况。
“我们非常不情愿、沮丧且极为克制地得出这一结论——只有在对大量案卷进行彻底分析之后，正如最高法院的还押命令和其先例所指示的那样，”该合议庭写道。
“阿拉巴马州议会清楚地知道，不增设第二个黑人机会选区的计划会削弱阿拉巴马州黑人参政的机会，而他们正是故意通过了这项计划，”该合议庭补充道。
该合议庭成员包括两名由唐纳德·特朗普总统任命的法官和一名由前总统比尔·克林顿任命的法官。
周二深夜的最高法院裁决同样令人震惊，它声称下级法院试图“在选举前夕改变选举规则”。
正是最高法院自己在4月29日针对路易斯安那州的一起案件作出的裁决，削弱了1965年《投票权法案》，导致随着中期选举临近，美国南部多个州的选区重划陷入混乱。周二深夜的新裁决无疑会加剧这种混乱局面。
在阿拉巴马州，部分初选已经开始，由三名法官组成的法院表示，放弃自2024年起实施的包含两个黑人选区的补救性国会选区地图为时已晚。（该地图在2024年选举中选出了两名黑人参议员，均为民主党人。）
阿拉巴马州议员们赌最高法院最终会站在他们这边；他们上个月通过了一项法案，如果最高法院批准他们青睐的地图，就将在8月举行新一轮初选，而如今这一情况确实发生了。
因此，阿拉巴马州明年在国会中可能只会有一名民主党议员和六名共和党议员。值得注意的是，最高法院4月29日在“路易斯安那州诉卡莱斯案”中以6票对3票作出的裁决似乎已经让南部各州的共和党受益。
“政府属于全体人民，而非部分人民”：小马丁·路德·金谈投票权
14:34 • 来源：CNN
‘Government is for the people, not for some people’: MLK III on voting rights
14:34
尽管最高法院不断削弱少数族裔选民行使选举权的保障，但结果却总是让共和党势力壮大。
在周二的反对意见中，三名自由派大法官细数了阿拉巴马州的诸多伎俩，并表示最高法院多数派“奖励了阿拉巴马州在整个诉讼过程中对法院命令的蔑视和公然的投机取巧”。
索尼娅·索托马约尔大法官为反对意见撰写了意见书，她表示：“（最高法院）直面自己造成的动荡和造成的伤害的记录。然而，正如阿拉巴马州变本加厉地推行种族歧视，最高法院今天也变本加厉地制造混乱。”
索托马约尔与同为民主党任命的埃琳娜·卡根和凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊大法官联合署名。
他们还指责多数派“以允许阿拉巴马州歧视阿拉巴马州黑人为由，颠覆阿拉巴马州的整个选举程序，从而贬低了民主进程”。
最高法院保守派多数派的六名成员均为共和党任命，他们是首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨以及克拉伦斯·托马斯、塞缪尔·阿利托、尼尔·戈萨奇、布雷特·卡瓦诺和艾米·科尼·巴雷特大法官。如果他们中有一人未支持这一无署名裁决（仅需五票即可形成多数），周二晚间并未有相关记录。
挑战者几乎无法达到阿利托设定的标准
2020年人口普查后，阿拉巴马州议会制定的国会选区计划仍仅设有一个黑人选区（全州共7个选区），尽管该州非裔人口数量庞大且稳定。
由三名法官组成的美国地区法院于2022年首次阻止使用该地图，称其可能违反1965年《投票权法案》，并指出“阿拉巴马州令人发指的种族和投票相关歧视历史是不可否认且有充分记录的”。
最高法院允许该州在2022年选举中使用有争议的地图，但在2023年以微弱优势确认了下级法院的裁决，要求增设第二个能让黑人选举出心仪候选人的选区。
阿拉巴马州继续违抗命令，拒绝绘制第二个能让黑人接近多数席位并能够选举出心仪代表的选区。由三名法官组成的法院于2025年再次举行庭审，认定修订后的计划违反了《投票权法案》和第十四修正案的平等保障条款。
该法院自行制定了旨在补救种族歧视的地图，这使得阿拉巴马州首次选出了第二名黑人参议员。
在最高法院重新解释投票权法的当前阶段，最高法院在4月“路易斯安那州诉卡莱斯案”的裁决中，对评估和补救重划选区时的种族歧视设定了更严格的标准。阿利托在其代表多数派的意见书中表示，挑战者再也不能仅以选票稀释的影响为依据。相反，他们必须证明州议员很可能存在歧视意图，或者如阿利托在意见书中阐明的那样，“情况强烈表明存在故意歧视行为”。
新的标准对挑战者来说几乎是不可能达到的，尽管该意见书的作者阿利托淡化了这些变化，并驳斥了悲观的预测。
周二深夜在“艾伦诉米利根案”中的裁决几乎证明了这些标准确实无法达到。
阿拉巴马州官员辩称，他们仅设有一个黑人选区的地图是“出于完全非种族的原因”绘制的，目的是将墨西哥湾沿岸地区完整地保留在一个国会选区内。
最高法院周二表示，下级法院合议庭在5月基于阿利托的“路易斯安那州诉卡莱斯案”裁决重新审理阿拉巴马州案件时，错误地“将该州与法院此前补救命令的法律分歧解读为歧视性敌意的证据”。
随着保守派最高法院多数派将其新裁决的依据放在“卡莱斯案”和一系列支持各州而非民权挑战者的裁决上，他们还表示，下级法院未能充分审查替代地图方案以及挑战阿拉巴马州的一方提出的论点。
“虽然联邦法院不应在选举临近时作出变更，”无署名裁决总结道，“但各州可以自行决定是否在选举前夕更改选举规则符合其最佳利益。”
自由派反对者称，这种观点将在未来几周引发混乱。他们指出，阿拉巴马州官员将不得不更改数十万选民的选民登记信息。
阿拉巴马州针对其黑人公民的歧视历史有充分记录且广为人知。国会在塞尔玛的埃德蒙·佩图斯桥“血腥星期日”事件后通过了1965年《投票权法案》。在1965年3月7日的冲突中，警长副手们在民权游行者试图过桥时鞭打和殴打他们。
当前案件中的下级法院表示，他们有意摒弃那段历史，转而关注当前情况并尊重立法者。
索托马约尔指出：“地区法院即使在如此尊重阿拉巴马州议会的情况下仍认定存在故意歧视，原因很简单：案卷记录一清二楚。”
如果该三名法官合议庭对州议员的裁决有误，她补充道，“那么在任何现实情况下，都不可能推翻立法善意的推定。”
https://www.cnn.com/
The Supreme Court gave Republicans another congressional win. But its ruling means much more.
2026-06-03T17:45:56.659Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/03/politics/supreme-court-alabama-voting-rights-act-redistricting
- The Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling that found Alabama’s congressional map intentionally discriminatory against Black voters.
- The decision eliminates a second Black district that had been in place since 2024, likely meaning the state will lose one Democrat in Congress.
- Three liberal justices dissented, saying the court rewarded Alabama’s defiance and doubled down on chaos before the midterm elections.
AI-generated summary was reviewed by a CNN editor.
Alabama has repeatedly come to the US Supreme Court to defend a racially discriminatory congressional map, asserting dubious claims and employing questionable tactics.
In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled against Alabama. Late Tuesday night, the emboldened conservative majority did the opposite, endorsing a state plan that eliminates a seat held by a Black Democrat that a special US district court has declared intentionally discriminatory.
The high court’s action demonstrated the truth that the nation’s protections for voting rights have not merely been “updated,” as Justice Samuel Alito insisted in late April.
They have been jettisoned.
The message in the Supreme Court’s unsigned opinion, posted after 9 pm ET, is that states now have vast latitude to draw maps that dilute the voting power of Blacks, Latinos and other racial minorities. Even if all indications are otherwise, judges must assume legislators acted in good faith when they devised their voting maps.
Tuesday’s decision, hastily made without full briefing or oral arguments, culminates decades of retrenchment on voting rights by the contemporary court.
The majority reversed the three-judge lower court’s detailed, 78-page opinion from May 26 that reinforced earlier trial findings of Alabama’s racial discrimination in redistricting. The state has continued to defend a map with only one district among the state’s seven in which Blacks would have a fair chance to elect a candidate of choice.
The state is about 27% Black. The special federal court had ordered a second Black district drawn. Over years of litigation, including in 2023 when the lower court panel’s determination was affirmed by the Supreme Court, the Alabama legislature went to lengths to dodge the mandate for a second Black district.
Yet, on Tuesday night, the Supreme Court majority faulted the US district court panel for failing to presume the state was acting with “legislative good faith.”
The lower court, in fact, said it had tried to give legislators the benefit of the doubt before finding Alabama had engaged in racially discriminatory vote dilution. Such dilution can occur when legislators draw maps concentrating Black voters in a single district, or alternatively dispersing them, to weaken their overall voting power.
“We reach this conclusion with great reluctance and dismay and even greater restraint — only after another exhaustive analysis of an extensive record, as the Supreme Court’s remand order and its precedent instructs us,” the panel wrote.
“The Legislature well knew that a plan without an additional Black-opportunity district would dilute Black Alabamians’ opportunity to participate in the political process, and it intentionally enacted that very plan,” the panel added.
On the panel was two judges appointed by President Donald Trump and one appointed by former President Bill Clinton.
Tuesday night’s Supreme Court decision was equally jarring in its assertion that the lower court was attempting to “alter the election rules on the eve of an election.”
It has been the Supreme Court’s own April 29 decision, eviscerating the 1965 Voting Rights Act in a separate Louisiana case, that has generated redistricting turmoil in several southern states as the midterm elections approach. Its new Tuesday night action is bound to add to the confusion.
In Alabama, as some primary voting had begun, the three-judge court said it was too late to abandon the remedial state congressional map with two Black districts that had been in place since 2024. (That map produced two Black members of Congress, both Democrats, in the 2024 cycle.)
Alabama legislators gambled the Supreme Court would ultimately side with them; they adopted legislation last month to hold a new set of primaries in August if the justices greenlit their preferred map, which indeed happened.
As a result, Alabama will likely have only one Democrat in Congress next year and six Republicans. It is notable that the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais on April 29 already appears to have benefitted Republicans in southern states.
‘Government is for the people, not for some people’: MLK III on voting rights
14:34 • Source: CNN
‘Government is for the people, not for some people’: MLK III on voting rights
14:34
While the Supreme Court has eroded guarantees for minority voters to exercise the franchise, the result continually has been to empower Republicans.
In their dissenting opinion Tuesday, the three liberal justices recounted the Alabama’s many maneuvers and said the high court majority “rewarded Alabama’s defiance of court orders and blatant gamesmanship throughout this litigation.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote for the dissenters, said, “(T)he Court is squarely faced with a record of the turmoil it has caused and the harm it has wrought. Yet just as Alabama doubled down on racial discrimination, the Court today doubles down on chaos.”
Sotomayor was joined by fellow Democratic appointees Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
They also asserted the majority, “debases the democratic process by upending Alabama’s entire election in the name of permitting Alabama to discriminate against Black Alabamians.”
The six members of the court’s conservative majority, all Republican appointees, are Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. If one of them broke from the unsigned decision (only five are needed for a majority), it was not noted Tuesday night.
Impossible for challengers to meet Alito’s standards
After the 2020 census, Alabama’s state legislature produced a congressional plan that still had only one district (of the total seven) in which Black voters constituted a majority, despite the sizeable steady African American population.
The three-judge US district court first blocked use of the map in 2022, saying it likely violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act and observed that, “Alabama’s extensive history of repugnant racial and voting-related discrimination is undeniable and well documented.”
The high court allowed the state to use the disputed map in 2022 elections but then in 2023 narrowly affirmed the lower court’s decision requiring a second district that would allow Blacks to elect a candidate of their choice.
Alabama continued to defy orders to draw a second district that would give Blacks close to a majority and the ability to be represented by a candidate of their choice. The three-judge court held another trial in 2025, concluding that the revised plan violated the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equality.
The court imposed its own map intended to remedy the racial discrimination, which led Alabama to elect for the first time a second Black member of Congress.
In the current chapter of Supreme Court reinterpretation of voting rights law, the Supreme Court with its April decision in Louisiana v. Callais imposed tougher rules for assessing and remedying race discrimination in redistricting. Challengers could no longer point to the effects of vote dilution, Alito said in his opinion for the majority. Rather, they would have to show that state legislators likely had discriminatory purpose or, as Alito spelled out in his opinion, that “circumstances give rise to a strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred.”
The new criteria appeared to be nearly impossible for challengers to meet, even though Alito, the opinion’s author, minimized the changes and rejected dire predictions.
Tuesday night’s ruling in Allen v. Milligan all but proves their impossibility.
Alabama officials have argued that their single-Black-district map was drawn “for entirely nonracial reasons” to keep its Gulf Coast region intact in one congressional district.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday said the lower court panel, when it reexamined Alabama’s case in May based on Alito’s Louisiana v. Callais decision, wrongly “interpreted the State’s legal disagreement with the court’s earlier remedial order as proof of discriminatory animus.”
As the conservative high court majority grounded its new ruling in Callais and a succession of decisions favoring states over civil rights challengers, it also said the lower court had failed to sufficiently scrutinize the alternative map and arguments offered by those challenging Alabama.
“While federal courts should not impose changes close to an election,” the unsigned decision concluded, “States are free to decide for themselves whether last-minute changes to an election are in their best interests.”
Such sentiment, the liberal dissenters declared, will produce havoc in the upcoming weeks. They noted that Alabama officials will have to change the voter registrations of hundreds of thousands of voters.
Alabama’s history of discrimination against its Black citizens is well documented and legendary. Congress passed the 1965 Voting Rights Act only after the “Bloody Sunday” attack on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma. During that March 7, 1965, clash, sheriff’s deputies whipped and beat civil rights marchers as they tried to cross the bridge.
The lower court in the current case said it deliberately turned away from that history to focus on the current circumstances and defer to legislators.
Observed Sotomayor, “The reason the District Court found intentional discrimination even after affording such deference to the Alabama Legislature is simple: The record is crystal clear.”
If that three-judge panel erred in its findings against state lawmakers, she added, “then there is no realistic case in which the presumption of legislative good faith can ever be rebutted.”
https://www.cnn.com/