Whether the State of Alabama is entitled to a stay of a District Court injunction that prevents the use of its 2023 congressional map. The question involves whether the District Court correctly applied updated standards for § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, the Court must determine if the State is likely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the injunction.

• The District Court failed to follow the updated standards for § 2 liability established in *Louisiana v. Callais*, 608 U. S. 85.
• The plaintiffs' alternative map does not perform "just as well" as the State's map regarding legitimate objectives, such as keeping the Gulf Coast community of interest together and avoiding incumbent pairing.
• The District Court erred by interpreting legal disagreements over remedial orders as evidence of discriminatory animus, ignoring the presumption of legislative good faith.
• Changing election rules on the eve of an election causes irreparable harm and violates the principle cautioned in *Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee*, 589 U. S. 423.

• The 2023 Redistricting Plan intentionally discriminates against Black Alabamians by entrenching racial vote dilution.
• The District Court's finding of intentional discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment is supported by the record and is not affected by *Louisiana v. Callais*, 608 U. S. 85.
• Maintaining the current remedial map is the path of least change and avoids the chaos of reassigning hundreds of thousands of voters manually.
• The State has "unclean hands" because it willfully defied a prior court order and this Court's affirmation in *Allen v. Milligan*, 599 U. S. 1.

• The Court granted the stay of the District Court's injunction, finding the State is likely to succeed on the merits of both the intentional vote-dilution and § 2 claims.
• Under *Louisiana v. Callais*, 608 U. S. 85, plaintiffs seeking § 2 relief must provide an alternative map that meets all the State's legitimate districting objectives "just as well" as the State's own map.
• The Court found the District Court erred because the plaintiffs' alternative map failed to perform as well as the State's map regarding the "constitutionally permissible criteria of keeping together the Gulf Coast community of interest and avoiding the pairing of incumbents."
• The Court noted that under *Callais*, the mere fact that voters of different races vote for different parties is not relevant to proving racially polarized voting patterns.
• Regarding intentional vote 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 NAACP*, 602 U. S. 1.
• The Court reasoned that the District Court improperly treated the State's legal disagreement with a previous remedial order as proof of discriminatory animus, citing *Abbott v. Perez*, 585 U. S. 579.
• The Court determined the State showed irreparable harm, citing *Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee*, 589 U. S. 423, which cautions that lower federal courts should not "alter the election rules on the eve of an election."
• The Court rejected the District Court's justification that court-imposed maps would be more convenient for the State, asserting that States are free to decide for themselves whether last-minute changes to an election are in their best interests.