Whether the Supreme Court should grant a stay of District Court injunctions that prevented Alabama from using its 2023 congressional map. The Court must determine if the District Court correctly applied the updated standards for §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fourteenth Amendment. Additionally, the Court considers whether the equities and public interest favor interim relief on the eve of the 2026 elections.

• The District Court failed to apply the updated standards for §2 liability established in *Louisiana v. Callais*.
• The District Court ignored the presumption of legislative good faith regarding claims of intentional vote dilution.
• The District Court's injunction improperly alters election rules on the eve of an election.
• The State's 2023 map should be used because the plaintiffs' alternative map does not meet the State's legitimate districting objectives.

• The District Court correctly found that Alabama intentionally entrenched racial discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• The remedial map should remain in place to avoid the chaos of reassigning hundreds of thousands of voters just days before an election.
• Alabama should not be granted equitable relief because it acted in defiance of prior court orders and the ruling in *Allen v. Milligan*.
• The findings of racially discriminatory vote dilution are permanent features of the case and were not overruled by *Louisiana v. Callais*.

• The Court granted the applications for stay, allowing Alabama to use its 2023 congressional map.
• The Court applied the updated §2 Voting Rights Act standards from *Louisiana v. Callais*, which require a plaintiff's alternative map to meet all the State's legitimate districting objectives "just as well" as the State's own map.
• Legitimate objectives include "the State's specified political goals" and "any other goal not prohibited by the Constitution," and race cannot be used as a districting criterion.
• The Court found the District Court erred by granting relief even though the alternative map failed to perform "just as well" regarding the Gulf Coast community of interest and the avoidance of pairing incumbents.
• The Court noted the District Court failed to follow *Louisiana v. Callais* by treating the fact that different races vote for different parties as relevant to proving racially polarized voting.
• Regarding intentional dilution, the Court held the District Court failed to heed the presumption of legislative good faith as required by *Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP*.
• The Court cited *Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee* to emphasize that lower federal courts should not "alter the election rules on the eve of an election."
• The Court concluded that the State demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and that the equities and public interest favored the stay.