{"id":89,"date":"2026-05-28T13:11:01","date_gmt":"2026-05-28T13:11:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=89"},"modified":"2026-05-28T13:11:01","modified_gmt":"2026-05-28T13:11:01","slug":"alabama-redistricting-dispute-returns-to-the-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=89","title":{"rendered":"Alabama redistricting dispute returns to the Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"

Good morning, and welcome to what\u2019s expected to be another opinion day at the Supreme Court. We will be live blogging beginning at 9:30 a.m. EDT.<\/p>

Read more Announcement of opinions for Thursday, May 28<\/a><\/p>

At the Court<\/h2>

On Wednesday, Alabama again asked the Supreme Court to allow it to use the congressional map it adopted in 2023 in the 2026 midterm elections. For more on the latest chapter of a long-running dispute, see the On Site section below.<\/p><\/div><\/div>

After the possible announcement of opinions this morning, the justices will meet in a private conference to discuss cases and vote on petitions for review. Orders from today\u2019s conference are expected on Monday at 9:30 a.m. EDT.<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

Morning Reads<\/h2>

$20 billion in tariff refunds paid so far, with more on the way<\/h3>

Steve Kopack, NBC News<\/p>

In a Tuesday filing with the Court of International Trade, Brandon Lord, executive director of trade programs at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency, stated that the \u201cTrump administration has refunded more than $20 billion so far in tariffs to importers and shippers … after the Supreme Court struck down the cornerstone of President Donald Trump\u2019s trade policy in February.\u201d Lord also said that a total of \u201c[a]pproximately $85 billion\u201d in refund requests \u201chave been accepted for processing.\u201d NBC News noted that \u201c[h]undreds of companies have lined up to get their money back, including Costco, Walmart, Home Depot, Target, General Motors, Ford Motor Company, FedEx, UPS and DHL.\u201d<\/p><\/div><\/div>

US Supreme Court settles long-running water dispute over dwindling Rio Grande<\/h3>

Susan Montoya Bryan, Associated Press<\/p>

In a brief on Tuesday, the Supreme Court \u201capproved a settlement package designed to rein in groundwater pumping along one of North America\u2019s longest rivers and ensure enough water reliably makes it from New Mexico to Texas, ending a long-running dispute over management of the Rio Grande,\u201d according to the Associated Press. \u201cThe settlement calls for reducing groundwater pumping along the dwindling river and retiring water rights from irrigated farmland in southern New Mexico.\u201d It was \u201cfirst proposed last year by New Mexico, Texas and Colorado\u201d and recommended by a court-appointed special master.<\/p><\/div><\/div>

Appeals court ruling will prevent Mahmoud Khalil’s removal while he seeks Supreme Court review<\/h3>

Armando Garcia, ABC News<\/p>

On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit granted Mahmoud Khalil\u2019s request to temporarily pause its ruling against him in order to \u201cprevent the Trump administration from detaining Khalil while he seeks to have his case reviewed by the Supreme Court,\u201d according to ABC News. Khalil is \u201ca green card holder who is married to an American citizen\u201d who was detained by ICE last year over his participation in pro-Palestinian campus demonstrations at Columbia University but then released after filing a federal lawsuit alleging First Amendment violations. The 3rd Circuit ruling that is now on hold cleared the way for Khalil\u2019s case to proceed in immigration court and for him to be detained again.<\/p><\/div><\/div>

Police hypnotized a witness. Now a Texas man faces death.<\/h3>

Jennifer Thompson, The Washington Post<\/svg><\/span><\/p>

In a column for The Washington Post, Jennifer Thompson described her experience accusing the wrong man of raping her, which she said resulted from \u201ctrauma and suggestive police procedures.\u201d That man, Ronald Cotton, was convicted of the crime and \u201cspent more than a decade behind bars before DNA evidence revealed the truth \u2013 he was innocent of the crime, and the real perpetrator was someone else,\u201d Thompson wrote. She went on to highlight the case of Charles Flores, who is on death row in Texas and who she believes was the victim of similarly suggestive investigative tactics \u2013 namely, \u201cinvestigative hypnosis.\u201d Thompson noted that she wrote a brief supporting Flores\u2019 effort to have the Supreme Court review his case and urged the justices to \u201censure that Flores is not wrongfully executed based on unreliable eyewitness identification.\u201d<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

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

Alabama urges Supreme Court to allow for use of congressional map struck by lower court as racially discriminatory <\/h3>

By Amy Howe<\/p>

Just over two weeks after the Supreme Court cleared the way for Alabama to use a congressional map that a lower court had blocked as racially discriminatory, Alabama returned to the court on Wednesday and asked the justices to pause a new ruling by a panel of federal judges that once again barred the state from using the map.<\/p><\/div>

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
Relist Watch<\/span>

New York Times v. Sullivan, service, and sentence credits<\/h3>

By John Elwood<\/p>

In his Relist Watch column, John Elwood highlighted three newly relisted petitions for review, including Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz\u2019s request for the court to revisit 1964\u2019s New York Times v. Sullivan, holding that the First Amendment prohibits allowing a public figure from recovering for defamation absent \u201cactual malice,\u201d meaning a showing that the defendant knew the statement was false or was reckless in publishing it.<\/p><\/div>

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
Contributor Corner<\/span>

The Roberts court\u2019s record on the First Amendment <\/h3>

By Adam Feldman<\/p>

In his Empirical SCOTUS column, Adam Feldman analyzed the Roberts court\u2019s record in cases involving free speech and religious freedom claims. He found that the \u201ccourt is often pro-speech, strongly pro-religion, and most consistent when speech overlaps with religious identity or conscience.\u201d<\/p><\/div>

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
Contributor Corner<\/span>

Criminal law update: some defense-friendly rulings and a big case that wasn\u2019t<\/h3>

By Rory Little<\/p>

In his ScotusCrim column, Rory Little offered an update on how the court is handing its criminal cases this term and brief descriptions of the \u201cbig\u201d criminal cases that still await decision. He also discussed the court\u2019s decision to dismiss Hamm v. Smith as \u201cimprovidently granted,\u201d which he had previously described as \u201cone of the most important criminal law cases facing the court this term.\u201d<\/p><\/div>

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

Podcasts<\/h2>
Amarica’s Constitution<\/span>

Unrehearsed Answers<\/h3>

Akhil Amar and Andy Lipka answer listeners\u2019 questions about pardons, illegal military orders, simultaneous office holding, and the Trump administration\u2019s supposed weaponization slush fund.<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

A Closer Look<\/div>

Harris v. Bessent<\/h3><\/div>

Last year on its interim docket, the court considered multiple disputes over President Donald Trump\u2019s firing of independent agency heads. The justices agreed to hear argument in one of those cases \u2013 Trump v. Slaughter<\/em>, on the president\u2019s effort to remove Rebecca Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission without cause \u2013 as well as in Trump v. Cook<\/em>, on the president\u2019s effort to remove Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve\u2019s Board of Governors, for cause. The court cleared the way for several of the firings, including Slaughter\u2019s (but not Cook\u2019s), to take effect while the lawsuits play out.<\/p>

The court\u2019s eventual rulings in Slaughter<\/em> and Cook<\/em>, which are expected by early July, may redefine the limits of executive power and determine the future of independent agencies. And the Slaughter<\/em> decision will likely also influence how the court responds to the in Harris v. Bessent<\/em>, which addresses Trump\u2019s February 2025 firing of Cathy Harris from the Merit Systems Protection Board and which is scheduled to be considered during the justices\u2019 private conference on Thursday.<\/p>

Read more Alabama urges Supreme Court to allow for use of congressional map struck by lower court as racially discriminatory<\/a><\/p>

Harris was appointed to the MSPB, which oversees the federal government\u2019s personnel practices, in 2022 by then-President Joe Biden, and she was set to serve on the board until 2028. But on Feb. 10, 2025, Trump terminated her. Harris filed a federal lawsuit the next day, emphasizing that, under federal law, members of the MSPB can only be removed by the president for \u201cinefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.\u201d<\/p>

U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras sided with Harris, holding that MSPB leaders can only be removed \u201cfor cause\u201d and that such removal protections are constitutional. The Trump administration appealed his ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where it was consolidated with a dispute over Trump\u2019s effort to remove Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board. (Like Harris, Wilcox had won the right to return to her job before a federal district court.) A D.C. Circuit panel initially granted the administration\u2019s request to be able to fire Harris and Wilcox while their lawsuits continue, but the full court vacated the panel\u2019s order and denied the government\u2019s request.<\/p>

In April 2025, the Trump administration came to the Supreme Court on its interim docket and asked the justices to pause the orders allowing Harris and Wilcox to continue working. The court granted that request in late May in a two-page, unsigned that included a brief discussion of the majority\u2019s views on executive control over federal agencies \u2013 views that will likely be more fully fleshed out in the upcoming Slaughter<\/em> and Cook<\/em> rulings.<\/p>

\u201cBecause the Constitution vests the executive power in the President … he may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf, subject to narrow exceptions recognized by our precedents,\u201d the order said. \u201cThe stay reflects our judgment that the Government is likely to show that both the NLRB and MSPB exercise considerable executive power.\u201d (At the same time, the court noted that the Fed, as \u201ca uniquely structured, quasi-private entity,\u201d is distinct from these other federal agencies, and that the for-cause removal protections for Fed governors should therefore not be viewed through the same lens.)<\/p>

Justice Elena Kagan dissented from the court\u2019s decision, in an opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, and described the order as \u201cnothing short of extraordinary.\u201d \u201cThe President,\u201d Kagan wrote, \u201chas no legal right to relief. Congress, by statute, has protected members of the NLRB and MSPB (like Wilcox and Harris) from Presidential removal except for good cause.\u201d<\/p>

In December 2025, the D.C. Circuit issued its ruling in Wilcox\u2019s and Harris\u2019 cases. Echoing the Supreme Court\u2019s interim order, the court that \u201cCongress may restrict the President\u2019s ability to remove principal officers who wield only quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial powers.\u201d However, the court continued, \u201cCongress may not restrict the President\u2019s ability to remove principal officers who wield substantial executive power,\u201d and thus Trump could remove Wilcox and Harris without cause.<\/p>

In her , Harris contends that the D.C. Circuit failed to recognize the difference between policymaking agencies, like the FTC, and agencies, like the MSPB, \u201cthat do[] not make policy, and instead appl[y] the law to facts in discrete cases.\u201d Those two categories of agencies wield significantly different amounts of executive power, according to the petition, and Congress can offer leaders of agencies that fall into the latter group for-cause removal protections without limiting the president\u2019s authority to control the executive branch. Even if leaders of the MSPB wield some executive power, Harris adds, the appropriate legal remedy is not to invalidate the removal protections, but to adjust the MSPB\u2019s scope of authority.<\/p>

Harris presents her case to the justices as a natural follow-up to Slaughter<\/em> that will allow them to determine \u201cwhether Congress may enact a for-cause removal statute for a purely \u2018adjudicatory body.\u2019\u201d At the very least, she contends, her case should be remanded to the D.C. Circuit for reconsideration once the Slaughter<\/em> ruling is released.<\/p>

In the government\u2019s to Harris\u2019 petition, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer counters that the D.C. Circuit\u2019s decision was correct because the MSPB \u201cplainly exercises executive power\u201d and further argues that Harris\u2019 suggested exception for \u201cadjudicatory bodies\u201d \u201cis flawed in principle and contrary to precedent.\u201d<\/p>

The justices are scheduled to consider Harris v. Bessent<\/em> for the first time during Thursday\u2019s conference, but they will likely wait until the Slaughter<\/em> ruling is released to take action on it.<\/p><\/div><\/div>

SCOTUS Quote<\/h2>

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: \u201cWell, just in terms of your position, do you think they could pull the car over?\u201d<\/p>

MR. KLEVEN: \u201cNo, Your Honor \u2026\u201d<\/p>

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: \u201cReally? Okay.\u201d<\/p>

MR. KLEVEN: \u201cBecause, again, it’s just the \u2013 the seriousness of the claim should not affect whether there is, in fact, reasonable suspicion.\u201d<\/p>

JUSTICE KENNEDY: \u201cYou get an A for consistency. I’m \u2013 I’m not sure about common sense.\u201d<\/p>

Read more New York Times v. Sullivan, service, and sentence credits<\/a><\/p>

\u2014 \u00a0(2014)<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Plus, we will be live blogging this morning as the court releases one or more opinions in argued cases.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":17,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23,22,4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-89","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-amaricas-constitution","category-contributor-corner","category-newsletter"],"yoast_head":"\nAlabama redistricting dispute returns to the Supreme Court - 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=89\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Alabama redistricting dispute returns to the Supreme Court - American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Plus, we will be live blogging this morning as the court releases one or more opinions in argued cases.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=89\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-05-28T13:11:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/6f2a9e153936826a89e2019c8c36cd73.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=89#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=89\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"headline\":\"Alabama redistricting dispute returns to the Supreme Court\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-28T13:11:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=89\"},\"wordCount\":2025,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=89#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Amarica's Constitution\",\"Contributor Corner\",\"Newsletter\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=89#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=89\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=89\",\"name\":\"Alabama redistricting dispute returns to the Supreme Court - American Service Review\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=89#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=89#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-28T13:11:01+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=89#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=89\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=89#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=89#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Alabama redistricting dispute returns to the Supreme Court\"}]},{\"@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":"Alabama redistricting dispute returns to the Supreme Court - 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=89","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Alabama redistricting dispute returns to the Supreme Court - American Service Review","og_description":"Plus, we will be live blogging this morning as the court releases one or more opinions in argued cases.","og_url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=89","og_site_name":"American Service Review","article_published_time":"2026-05-28T13:11:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2000,"height":1333,"url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/6f2a9e153936826a89e2019c8c36cd73.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=89#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=89"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"headline":"Alabama redistricting dispute returns to the Supreme Court","datePublished":"2026-05-28T13:11:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=89"},"wordCount":2025,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=89#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg","articleSection":["Amarica's Constitution","Contributor Corner","Newsletter"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=89#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=89","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=89","name":"Alabama redistricting dispute returns to the Supreme Court - American Service Review","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=89#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=89#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg","datePublished":"2026-05-28T13:11:01+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=89#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=89"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=89#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=89#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Alabama redistricting dispute returns to the Supreme Court"}]},{"@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\/89","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=89"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/89\/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=89"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=89"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=89"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}