{"id":124,"date":"2026-06-02T13:13:24","date_gmt":"2026-06-02T13:13:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=124"},"modified":"2026-06-02T13:13:24","modified_gmt":"2026-06-02T13:13:24","slug":"court-asked-to-bar-alabama-from-using-states-preferred-map","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=124","title":{"rendered":"Court asked to bar Alabama from using state\u2019s preferred map"},"content":{"rendered":"

Reminder: Each Wednesday, SCOTUSblog\u2019s Amy Howe answers your questions about the court in a section called Ask Amy. Send your queries to [email\u00a0protected]<\/span>.<\/p>

Read more Supreme Court urged to uphold lower court decision striking Alabama congressional map as racially discriminatory<\/a><\/p>

At the Court<\/h2>

On Monday, the court added a new case on the First Step Act to its oral argument docket for the 2026-27 term, sent a death-row inmate\u2019s case back to the lower courts for additional proceedings, and turned down a request from Florida to file an original action against California challenging the constitutionality of a California corporate tax rule. For more on Monday\u2019s , see the On Site section below.<\/p><\/div><\/div>

Alabama has asked the court on its interim docket to allow it to use a congressional map in this year\u2019s elections that was struck by a lower court as racially discriminatory. On Monday, the plaintiffs challenging the map to that request. Hours later, Alabama replied to their filings, so the justices could act at any time.<\/p><\/div><\/div>

Also on Monday, the court Andrew Lukehart\u2019s request for a stay of execution. Lukehart is scheduled to be executed today in Florida.<\/p><\/div><\/div>

The court has indicated that it may announce opinions on Thursday at 10 a.m. EDT. We will be live blogging that morning beginning at 9:30 a.m.<\/p><\/div><\/div>

After the possible announcement of opinions on Thursday, the justices will meet in a private conference to discuss cases and vote on petitions for review. Orders from that conference are expected on Monday, June 8, at 9:30 a.m. EDT.<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

Morning Reads<\/h2>

Once-confidential documents reveal Scalia\u2019s role in Supreme Court taking up famous Dick Cheney case<\/h3>

Joan Biskupic, CNN<\/svg><\/span><\/p>

In a story based on once-confidential documents belonging to the late Justice John Paul Stevens that are now public at the Library of Congress, CNN explored Justice Antonin Scalia\u2019s role in the court\u2019s 2003 decision to hear \u201ca case involving then-Vice President Dick Cheney\u2019s attempt to keep private politically sensitive records from his energy policy task force that had recommended opening more federal lands to oil and gas drilling.\u201d The documents reveal that \u201cthe justices had tentatively voted against Cheney\u2019s appeal … and it was Scalia who persuaded them to take up the case.\u201d Even without this context, \u201c[s]everal big newspapers\u201d called on Scalia to recuse himself from the case because of his friendship with Cheney. Scalia refused, explaining that he did not believe his \u201cimpartiality can reasonably be questioned.\u201d CNN noted that \u201creactions to Scalia\u2019s decision would likely have intensified if the public had been aware of the difference Scalia made to hear Cheney\u2019s appeal.\u201d<\/p><\/div><\/div>

Split appeals court panel protects some transgender people already in military<\/h3>

Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein, Politico<\/p>

On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that \u201cDefense Secretary Pete Hegseth\u2019s policy to remove transgender members of the military was fueled by unconstitutional animus and \u2018the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group,\u2019\u201d according to Politico. However, the three-judge panel \u201cdivided over how broadly to apply its ruling, opting to protect only the specific plaintiffs in the case. In a 2-1 ruling authored by Judge Robert Wilkins, the panel made clear it was seeking to avoid running afoul of the Supreme Court\u2019s concerns about nationwide injunctions.\u201d \u201cIn a separate challenge to the same policy last year, the Supreme Court lifted an order from a federal judge in Washington state that blocked the military from enforcing the ban.\u201d The two judges who joined Monday\u2019s decision \u201cnoted that the Supreme Court\u2019s silence about its basis for that decision left open whether the justices would uphold their narrower ruling.\u201d<\/p><\/div><\/div>

Ex-Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell sounds alarm over political interference<\/h3>

Joseph Gedeon, The Guardian<\/p>

As he accepted the 2026 John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award in Boston on Sunday, Jerome Powell, the former chair of the Federal Reserve, \u201cwarned that a single act of political interference in monetary policy could permanently destroy public trust in the central bank\u201d and said that the Fed is \u201cin the midst of a \u2018stress test,\u2019\u201d according to The Guardian. \u201cHe spoke as the supreme court weighs a highly anticipated decision on the fate of Fed governor Lisa Cook, whom Trump attempted to fire last August. Powell did not mention Trump, or Cook, by name.\u201d<\/p><\/div><\/div>

Democrats Promise to Wreck the Supreme Court<\/h3>

Editorial Board, The Wall Street Journal<\/svg><\/span><\/p>

In a Sunday editorial, The Wall Street Journal\u2019s editorial board criticized top Democrats who have recently called for Supreme Court reform, contending that potential changes such as expanding the number of justices or \u201cdeny[ing] the Justices the power to choose which cases they hear\u201d would destabilize the law and \u201cblow up\u201d the court. According to the board, \u201cDemocrats are free to dislike the Court\u2019s decision,\u201d but they should pursue legislative responses, not \u201cdestabilizing power grabs.\u201d \u201cIf Democrats abhor gerrymandering,\u201d for example, \u201cthey can argue for a bill to limit how, or how often, states draw House maps.\u201d<\/p><\/div><\/div>

Florida v. California<\/h3>

Steve Vladeck, One First<\/p>

In a post for his Substack, Steve Vladeck explored the court\u2019s \u201crefusal to exercise \u2018original\u2019 jurisdiction\u201d in Florida v. California<\/em>, a case that \u201carose out of accusations Florida leveled against California and Washington of violating federal safety and immigration laws by issuing CDLs [commercial driver licenses] to individuals who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents and who allegedly lack English proficiency.\u201d Specifically, Vladeck discussed the debate over whether \u201cthe Supreme Court can exercise the same discretion to decline to hear original<\/em> jurisdiction cases that it exercises over (almost all of) its appellate docket,\u201d explaining why he thinks \u201csuch discretion is a good<\/em> thing.\u201d<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

On Site<\/h2>
Court News<\/span>

Justices send case of death-row inmate back to lower courts, grant new First Step Act case<\/h3>

By Amy Howe<\/p>

The court on Monday added one new case to its argument docket for the 2026-27 term, granting another case involving the First Step Act, a 2018 criminal justice law intended to improve federal prison conditions and reduce long federal prison sentences. In an unsigned opinion, the justices also sent the case of a Florida death-row inmate back to the lower courts for another look. The announcements came as part of a list of orders from the justices\u2019 May 28 conference.<\/p><\/div>

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
Court News<\/span>

Supreme Court urged to uphold lower court decision striking Alabama congressional map as racially discriminatory <\/h3>

By Amy Howe<\/p>

The plaintiffs challenging an Alabama congressional map urged the justices on Monday afternoon to leave in place a ruling by a panel of federal judges that bars Alabama from using the map on the ground that it is racially discriminatory. One set of plaintiffs told the justices that the lower court \u201cmade findings on a full record that remains the definitive account of Alabama\u2019s racial geography, racialized politics, and racially discriminatory policymaking.\u201d<\/p><\/div>

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
From the SCOTUSblog Team<\/span>

The most important cases yet to be decided<\/h3>

By Amy Howe<\/p>

By the end of this month \u2013 or the beginning of July, at the latest \u2013 the Supreme Court is expected to issue the final 26 opinions in cases that were argued during the 2025-26 term. Amy summarized the most closely watched disputes that are still awaiting a ruling.<\/p>

Read more Court rejects broad interpretation of compassionate release statute<\/a><\/p><\/div>

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
Opinion Analysis<\/span>

Court rejects broad interpretation of compassionate release statute<\/h3>

By Richard Cooke<\/p>

A federal defendant may obtain compassionate release if a district court finds, among other things, that \u201cextraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction\u201d to his or her sentence. In two rulings last week, the court declined to apply that statute broadly.<\/p><\/div>

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

Podcasts<\/h2>
Divided Argument<\/span>

Smooth Stone in the River<\/h3>

Will Baude and Dan Epps talk about the court\u2019s latest summary reversal on the \u201cparty presentation principle\u201d; Justice Brett Kavanaugh\u2019s vindication of his law journal student note in Pitchford v. Cain; Rutherford and Fernandez, two related cases about the intersection of compassionate release and habeas; and the DIG in Hamm v. Smith, a case about capital punishment and intellectual disability.<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

A Closer Look<\/div>

Oral Argument at the Supreme Court<\/h3><\/div>

During his appearance at the 3rd Circuit Judicial Conference last month, Chief Justice John Roberts remarked on the court\u2019s post-COVID-19 pandemic oral argument format, saying that the court\u2019s oral arguments have gotten \u201ca little too long\u201d and are \u201cmaybe not as focused as usual.\u201d He added that the justices may reconsider the format this summer.<\/p>

The chief is not alone in that view. Justice Samuel Alito, speaking at the 5th Circuit Judicial Conference the same week, lamented that under the current format arguments drag on well beyond what is useful to the decision-making process, with extended commentary from the bench crowding out \u201creal questions.\u201d<\/p>

Per the (which Kelsey perused for her piece on making jokes or cursing before the justices): \u201cUnless the Court directs otherwise, argument will be scheduled to last one hour, with 30 minutes allowed for each side.\u201d In practice, however, a typical oral argument runs (sometimes well) over the allotted hour.<\/p>

Before COVID-19, argument followed a \u201cfree-for-all\u201d structure in which, after a brief opening interval, any justice could interject, and at any moment. When the pandemic forced arguments to become remote in spring 2020, Roberts introduced a more orderly method, calling on each justice in turn by seniority. The change produced a few notable side effects, one being that Justice Clarence Thomas (who had gone years without posing a question) became a more consistent questioner at oral argument.<\/p>

When the justices returned to the courtroom in fall 2021, they integrated the turn-taking with the traditional \u201cfree-for-all.\u201d Under the current rules, each lawyer has two minutes of uninterrupted time for their opening argument, after which any justice can weigh in freely during the remainder of that lawyer\u2019s allotted time. Once that time expires, the justices enter a \u201cseriatim\u201d round, where each justice has the opportunity to question the attorney individually, beginning with the chief justice and continuing down in order of seniority.<\/p>

That addition is a primary driver of the longer argument times: data compiled by legal scholar and SCOTUSblog contributor Adam Feldman shows roughly a 40% increase in average argument length between 2019 and 2022, and although there has been a slight pullback since, arguments on average are still longer than they were before the pandemic. (Amy, who attended nearly every argument this term, noted that reporters now budget for roughly twice the scheduled argument time, \u201cespecially if there are more than two lawyers arguing.\u201d)<\/p>

The longer arguments have also reshaped who does the talking. In some of this term\u2019s biggest cases, the justices accounted for almost or more than half of all words spoken. In Barrett v. United States<\/em>, a dispute around double jeopardy, Feldman\u2019s data showed the justices even collectively outtalked the lawyers, with the bench controlling 53.2% of the total words exchanged. Per Amy, the lawyers themselves generally tend to welcome the extended format, which affords them more opportunities to engage with each individual justice. But, as noted at this closer look\u2019s beginning, not all of the justices share that enthusiasm.<\/p>

Whether the court will<\/em> actually revise the format is an open question \u2013 they could, for instance, trim down the individual questioning round, which is understood to last around five minutes per justice (although nothing in the court\u2019s official rules fixes that number). Until they do so, however, our advice for those of you who plan to attend a sitting next term is to still budget for a rather lengthy argument session \u2013 especially in major cases.<\/p><\/div><\/div>

SCOTUS Quote<\/h2>

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: \u201cSo I’m sure \u2013 you’re \u2013 you’re saying that the State of Texas can take water directly from the main stem?\u201d<\/p>

MS. BLATT: \u201cIt can and does.\u201d<\/p>

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: \u201cThat’s my point, yeah.\u201d<\/p>

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: \u201cAnywhere close to of the 25 percent they claim entitlement to?\u201d<\/p>

Read more Justices send case of death-row inmate back to lower courts, grant new First Step Act case<\/a><\/p>

MS. BLATT: \u201cWell, who knows?\u201d<\/p>

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: \u201cI was hoping you did.\u201d<\/p>

\u2014 \u00a0(2013)<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Plus, the court took up another case on the First Step Act.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":17,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[19,5,4,6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-124","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-divided-argument","category-from-the-scotusblog-team","category-newsletter","category-opinion-analysis"],"yoast_head":"\nCourt asked to bar Alabama from using state\u2019s preferred map - American Service Review<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=124\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Court asked to bar Alabama from using state\u2019s preferred map - American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Plus, the court took up another case on the First Step Act.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=124\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-06-02T13:13:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/32cc645a93d087c339085244eaf818f7.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2000\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1333\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=124#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=124\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"headline\":\"Court asked to bar Alabama from using state\u2019s preferred map\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-02T13:13:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=124\"},\"wordCount\":2019,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=124#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Divided Argument\",\"From the SCOTUSblog Team\",\"Newsletter\",\"Opinion Analysis\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=124#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=124\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=124\",\"name\":\"Court asked to bar Alabama from using state\u2019s preferred map - American Service Review\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=124#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=124#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-02T13:13:24+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=124#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=124\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=124#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg\",\"width\":1200,\"height\":627},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=124#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Court asked to bar Alabama from using state\u2019s preferred map\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/\",\"name\":\"American Service Review\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Court asked to bar Alabama from using state\u2019s preferred map - American Service Review","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=124","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Court asked to bar Alabama from using state\u2019s preferred map - American Service Review","og_description":"Plus, the court took up another case on the First Step Act.","og_url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=124","og_site_name":"American Service Review","article_published_time":"2026-06-02T13:13:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2000,"height":1333,"url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/32cc645a93d087c339085244eaf818f7.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=124#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=124"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"headline":"Court asked to bar Alabama from using state\u2019s preferred map","datePublished":"2026-06-02T13:13:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=124"},"wordCount":2019,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=124#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg","articleSection":["Divided Argument","From the SCOTUSblog Team","Newsletter","Opinion Analysis"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=124#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=124","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=124","name":"Court asked to bar Alabama from using state\u2019s preferred map - American Service Review","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=124#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=124#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg","datePublished":"2026-06-02T13:13:24+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=124#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=124"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=124#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg","width":1200,"height":627},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=124#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Court asked to bar Alabama from using state\u2019s preferred map"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/","name":"American Service Review","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/americanservicereview.com"],"url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?author=1"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=124"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/17"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=124"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=124"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=124"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}