On October 9, 2026, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed that dismissal in a 13‑page, unsigned opinion. The justices held that a party nominee “does not exercise any public office” and therefore is not subject to
quo warranto. The court concluded the Montgomery Circuit Court “lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction” over the case.
Key legal points
- No public office status: The court said nomination for election does not confer sovereign governmental functions, so quo warranto is not available against such nominees.
- Jurisdictional bar: The lower court’s lack of authority was the decisive factor; the Supreme Court did not address the residency claim itself .
- No precedent: Alabama law has no case directly allowing quo warranto to challenge a certified nominee’s eligibility before the general election.
Reactions
Plaintiffs’ attorney Barry Ragsdale called the decision “disappointing but not surprising” and said it “opens the door to ineligible candidates, including non‑U.S. citizens” if parties fail to vet nominees Tuberville’s campaign and attorney Joe Espy welcomed the ruling, framing it as a proper application of the law.
Background
Tuberville, a Republican gubernatorial nominee and U.S. senator since 2021, has faced long‑running questions about his residency. He denies the allegations, claiming he has lived in Auburn since 2018. The lawsuit cited media reports of a Florida property and other records, but Tuberville’s campaign said the Auburn home was added to his name in 2024.
In short: The case is dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, and the Alabama Supreme Court confirmed that
quo warranto cannot be used to challenge a party nominee’s eligibility before the general election