Tommy Tuberville cannot shield his residency fight behind the Alabama Republican Party or the State Legislature, attorneys challenging his gubernatorial nomination argued in a brief filed Monday with the Alabama Supreme Court.
The filing, submitted by attorney Barry Ragsdale on behalf of two veterans, Brooke Dorgan and Justin LeBlanc, asks the state’s highest court to reverse a Montgomery County Circuit Court judge’s dismissal of their “quo warranto” lawsuit and send the case back for further proceedings.
At its core, the dispute is about who gets to decide whether a candidate for governor actually lives in Alabama. The plaintiffs argue Alabama courts have the “sole and exclusive function” of deciding whether Tuberville, the Republican nominee, meets the state constitution’s seven-year residency requirement for the office.
A Separation-of-Powers Fight
The brief frames the appeal as a separation-of-powers battle. If Tuberville’s legal theories are accepted, the plaintiffs argue, the judicial branch would effectively be barred from weighing in on constitutional eligibility criteria for Alabama’s highest executive offices — including the residency requirement itself.
“Senator Tuberville’s approach, if accepted by this court, would completely immunize from judicial review the constitutional question of a candidate’s Constitutional eligibility for office,” the brief states. “No court, ever, would be permitted to interpret or apply [the] eligibility requirement.”
Under Tuberville’s reading, political parties would have sole vetting authority during the nomination phase, and a post-election challenge to a sitting governor would be heard in a trial before the State Legislature.
“That simply cannot be the law,” the brief states. “It should be universally understood that the courts of this state have a solemn and exclusive duty to interpret and apply the Alabama Constitution.”
How the Case Got Here
The lawsuit, filed by Dorgan and LeBlanc, alleges that Tuberville — who has represented Alabama in the U.S. Senate since 2021 — does not meet the seven-year residency requirement the Alabama Constitution imposes on candidates for governor. The plaintiffs point to his Florida beach property and to public statements and interviews in which, they say, he referenced living in the state.
Tuberville has denied the allegation, saying he moved back to Alabama, and his campaign has dismissed the litigation as a politically motivated effort tied to his Democratic opponent, former U.S. Sen. Doug Jones. The Alabama Republican Party rejected a similar challenge in June, citing Tuberville’s property, tax and voting records.
Last month, Montgomery County Circuit Judge Brooke Reid dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds. She did not rule on whether Tuberville satisfies the residency requirement. Instead, she found there was no Alabama case expressly allowing quo warranto — the centuries-old writ used to challenge a person’s right to hold public office — to be deployed against a certified party nominee before the general election.
Even in dismissing the case, Reid signaled sympathy with the underlying concern. She wrote that the “public interest certainly weighs in favor of judicial resolution” of constitutional eligibility before an election, and that there was a “very strong argument” quo warranto should be available in this circumstance. But, she concluded, she lacked the authority to extend the law herself.
“The suggestion that courts are without authority, when properly invoked, to rule upon the constitutional eligibility of a nominee to hold office is lacking in merit,” Reid wrote.
What the Appeal Asks
The plaintiffs’ brief asks the Alabama Supreme Court to hold that the courts — not party committees, and not the Legislature — are the proper forum for resolving a candidate’s constitutional eligibility. Tuberville’s legal team had argued the matter was already settled by the state Republican Party’s formal hearing on his residency, and that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction under state election law.
Secretary of State Wes Allen, who was named as a defendant in his official capacity, had also sought dismissal, arguing the court should step aside quickly so the case would not interfere with time-sensitive preparations for the general election.
Reid acknowledged during a hearing that she expected the state’s highest court to ultimately settle the question, and the plaintiffs’ appeal was widely expected. The Supreme Court now faces a question with no direct precedent in Alabama: whether the writ of quo warranto, historically aimed at officeholders, can reach a nominee who has not yet taken office.
For the plaintiffs, the stakes extend beyond one candidate. They argue that if parties and legislatures can absorb all eligibility questions, no court will ever review whether a candidate for Alabama’s highest office satisfies the constitution’s basic requirements.
For Tuberville’s campaign, the case is an unwelcome distraction in a race it enters as the favorite — and an attack it has branded a “bogus lawsuit” pushed by allies of his opponent.
The Alabama Supreme Court has not indicated when it will act on the appeal. With the general election approaching, both sides agree on at least one thing: the clock is running.