Supreme Court Term 2025-2026
We’re breaking down the cases we've asked the court to consider this term.
Latest Case Updates
Updated September 10, 2026
Ongoing
Updated September 8, 2026
Closed
Updated August 31, 2026
Ongoing
Updated August 31, 2026
Featured
Alaska
Oct 2026
Voting Rights
United States v. Alaska
Representing two Alaska voters, the League of Women Voters of Alaska, and Common Cause, the American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of Alaska moved to intervene in United States v. Alaska, a frivolous lawsuit seeking to prevent from the State of Alaska from certifying its election results if the incumbent U.S. Senator does not win the election. The lawless suit asserts a single claim based on the purpose language of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), that has no basis in any case, legal principle, or arguably tenable reading of the NVRA.
We are seeking dismissal of this suit that aims to deprive Alaskans of their right to vote and right to representation.
California
Oct 2026
Voting Rights
OCA-Asian Pacific American Advocates v. Department of Homeland Security
The Department of Homeland Security and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services are subjecting thousands of naturalized American citizens to improper investigations questioning their voting eligibility, and they’re using outdated, faulty data and methods to do so. As a result, these citizens face increasing, unwarranted scrutiny from the federal government and, potentially, disenfranchisement. We’re challenging these unlawful actions and the unreliable data behind them to ensure no eligible voter is targeted or silenced because of them.
Court Case
Oct 2026
National Security
Human Rights
FOIA Case Seeking the Trump Administration’s Legal Justification for Deadly Boat Strikes
The Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”) authored a legal opinion that reportedly claims to justify the Trump administration’s illegal lethal strikes on civilians in boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean. Media reports indicate that, in addition to claiming that the strikes are lawful acts in an alleged “armed conflict” with unspecified drug cartels, the OLC opinion also purports to immunize personnel who authorized or took part in the strikes from future criminal prosecution. Because the public deserves to know how our government is justifying these illegal strikes, and why they think the people who carried them out should not be held accountable, the ACLU is seeking immediate release of the OLC legal opinion and related documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.
Colorado Supreme Court
Oct 2026
Civil Liberties
Criminal Law Reform
Daves v. Mosley
Section 131 of the newly enacted Enhance Law Enforcement Integrity Act gives Coloradans a cause of action to seek damages or equitable relief when state or local police officers violate the Colorado Constitution. In 2022, Christopher Mosley sued Officer Brendan Daves for conducting a warrantless search of his car, which Daves argued was lawful under the federal protective sweep doctrine. After Mosley prevailed at trial and the court of appeals affirmed, Daves appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative and the ACLU of Colorado filed an amicus brief agreeing with Mosley’s argument that Daves has misapprehended the federal doctrine whilst focusing on a separate point: the Court’s interpretation of Section 131 is not bound by federal law.
Florida
Oct 2026
National Security
+2 Issues
CAIR-Foundation, Inc and CAIR Florida, Inc. v. DeSantis et al.
The ACLU, the ACLU of Florida, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and their partners represent CAIR and CAIR-Florida in two federal lawsuits challenging Governor DeSantis’s unconstitutional and baseless designation of the nonprofits as “terrorist.” The lawsuits allege violations of CAIR and CAIR-Florida’s rights under the First Amendment and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Washington, D.C.
Oct 2026
Voting Rights
Common Cause v. U.S. Department of Justice
The U.S. Department of Justice has launched an unprecedented and unlawful effort to invade the privacy of millions of American voters and threaten their right to vote. It has demanded that every state and the District of Columbia turn over their entire voter database, including Social Security Numbers, political party affiliation, and voter participation history. And at least a dozen states have complied, submitting their voters’ information for federal review. But the Department of Justice has no authority to dictate when a voter registration should be cancelled, and we are suing to stop the federal government’s overreach and ensure that voters’ information remains secure and free from unlawful interference.
Ohio
Sep 2026
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region et al., v. Ohio Department of Health, et al.
The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Ohio, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the law firm WilmerHale, and Fanon Rucker of the Cochran Law Firm, on behalf of Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio, Preterm-Cleveland, Women’s Med Group Professional Corporation, Dr. Sharon Liner, and Julia Quinn, MSN, BSN, amended a complaint in an existing lawsuit against a ban on telehealth medication abortion services to bring new claims under the Ohio Reproductive Freedom Amendment, including additional challenges to other laws in Ohio that restrict access to medication abortion in the state.
Massachusetts
Sep 2026
Voting Rights
League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump
On March 31, 2026, President Trump issued a sweeping Executive Order titled “Ensuring Citizen Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” seeking once again to seize control of election administration from Congress and the states. The Order directs federal agencies to compile lists of U.S. citizens and transmit them to states before every election, directs the U.S. Postal Service — an independent agency established by Congress — to create a list of “approved” mail voters, and instructs USPS to refuse to deliver ballots from voters not on that federally created list. If implemented, the Order would threaten the ability of millions of eligible citizens to cast their ballots, particularly military members, overseas citizens, the elderly, recently naturalized citizens, and voters with disabilities who rely on mail voting.
Oregon Supreme Court
Aug 2026
LGBTQ Rights
Prisoners' Rights
Zyst v. Miller
Following the Oregon Department of Corrections’ unconstitutional treatment of a transgender prisoner, a habeas court ordered her removal from segregated housing, an individualized gender-affirming care assessment, a psychiatric evaluation, and identification of an appropriate cellmate. However, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the psychiatric-evaluation and cellmate orders, finding them “too attenuated” to qualify as habeas relief. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Oregon, joined an amicus brief by the law firm Sugerman Dahab arguing that habeas courts have broad discretion to remedy violations and resulting harms. The brief explains that the Court of Appeals’ “close connection” test unduly constricts habeas relief, and which should be construed to encompass not only the need to halt ongoing constitutional violations, but also the need to mitigate various harms that may arise from those violations.
All Cases
1,763 Court Cases
Alaska
Sep 2026
Voting Rights
Racial Justice
Smith v. State of Alaska (Amicus)
The ACLU and ACLU of Alaska have filed an amicus in support of Tupe Smith, a woman born in American Samoa who now lives in Whittier, Alaska charged with falsely affirming that she was a U.S. citizen when she registered to vote. But Tupe Smith is not an “alien” under the law. People, like her, born in the U.S. territory of American Samoa are the only remaining individuals recognized as “non-citizen U.S. nationals,” a unique status that falls short of “citizen” but nonetheless recognizes that American Samoa has been part of the United States for over 125 years.
All evidence indicates that Ms. Smith believed that, as a non-citizen U.S. national, she was eligible to vote in local elections when she registered to vote. In fact, local election officials encouraged her to check the box labeled “U.S. citizen” when she registered, given the fact that there was no option for “U.S. national.”
Our amicus brief urges Alaska’s Court of Appeals to dismiss Tupe Smith’s indictment because of well-settled principles that election-crime statutes should be construed to avoid punishing innocent mistakes. Separately, we warn that upholding a different view of the law would make Alaska an outlier among the states.
Explore case
Alaska
Sep 2026
Voting Rights
Racial Justice
Smith v. State of Alaska (Amicus)
The ACLU and ACLU of Alaska have filed an amicus in support of Tupe Smith, a woman born in American Samoa who now lives in Whittier, Alaska charged with falsely affirming that she was a U.S. citizen when she registered to vote. But Tupe Smith is not an “alien” under the law. People, like her, born in the U.S. territory of American Samoa are the only remaining individuals recognized as “non-citizen U.S. nationals,” a unique status that falls short of “citizen” but nonetheless recognizes that American Samoa has been part of the United States for over 125 years.
All evidence indicates that Ms. Smith believed that, as a non-citizen U.S. national, she was eligible to vote in local elections when she registered to vote. In fact, local election officials encouraged her to check the box labeled “U.S. citizen” when she registered, given the fact that there was no option for “U.S. national.”
Our amicus brief urges Alaska’s Court of Appeals to dismiss Tupe Smith’s indictment because of well-settled principles that election-crime statutes should be construed to avoid punishing innocent mistakes. Separately, we warn that upholding a different view of the law would make Alaska an outlier among the states.
Wisconsin
Sep 2026
Voting Rights
United States v. Wisconsin Elections Commission
The Department of Justice sued the Wisconsin Elections Commission and its members, demanding the state produce its full, unredacted voter file, which contains highly sensitive and personal data on every voter in the state. This suit appears to be part of the federal government’s efforts to build a national voter database without congressional authorization and to improperly question the validity of state voter rolls.
Explore case
Wisconsin
Sep 2026
Voting Rights
United States v. Wisconsin Elections Commission
The Department of Justice sued the Wisconsin Elections Commission and its members, demanding the state produce its full, unredacted voter file, which contains highly sensitive and personal data on every voter in the state. This suit appears to be part of the federal government’s efforts to build a national voter database without congressional authorization and to improperly question the validity of state voter rolls.
Washington, D.C.
Sep 2026
Free Speech
Levine v. FAA
On September 4, 2026, the ACLU, ACLU of D.C. and the National Press Photographers Association filed an amicus brief to urge the court to block airspace restrictions on drone flights, banning such flights over any Department of Homeland Security (DHS) facility or “mobile asset,” which includes any DHS vehicle.
Explore case
Washington, D.C.
Sep 2026
Free Speech
Levine v. FAA
On September 4, 2026, the ACLU, ACLU of D.C. and the National Press Photographers Association filed an amicus brief to urge the court to block airspace restrictions on drone flights, banning such flights over any Department of Homeland Security (DHS) facility or “mobile asset,” which includes any DHS vehicle.
Georgia Supreme Court
Sep 2026
Civil Liberties
In the Interest of D.B.
The ACLU’s Center for Liberty and State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Georgia, filed an amicus brief in the Georgia Supreme Court supporting a grieving mother challenging the removal of her children without notice, a hearing, or any finding that the children faced danger because one of her children had just died by suicide. A Georgia appellate court found that the State can take children from a parent ex parte—before the parent is ever heard—whenever circumstances are “exceptional,” which the court below defined to mean merely “unusual” rather than a genuine emergency. The juvenile court later returned the children, finding no basis for their removal and reprimanded the State for further traumatizing a grieving family. Because these removals are brief and the appeals process is slow, the practice largely evades review, and it falls hardest on the families with the least resources to challenge these kinds of removals. Our brief urges the court to require a genuine emergency before the State may remove a child without first hearing from their parent.
Explore case
Georgia Supreme Court
Sep 2026
Civil Liberties
In the Interest of D.B.
The ACLU’s Center for Liberty and State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Georgia, filed an amicus brief in the Georgia Supreme Court supporting a grieving mother challenging the removal of her children without notice, a hearing, or any finding that the children faced danger because one of her children had just died by suicide. A Georgia appellate court found that the State can take children from a parent ex parte—before the parent is ever heard—whenever circumstances are “exceptional,” which the court below defined to mean merely “unusual” rather than a genuine emergency. The juvenile court later returned the children, finding no basis for their removal and reprimanded the State for further traumatizing a grieving family. Because these removals are brief and the appeals process is slow, the practice largely evades review, and it falls hardest on the families with the least resources to challenge these kinds of removals. Our brief urges the court to require a genuine emergency before the State may remove a child without first hearing from their parent.
Alabama
Sep 2026
Reproductive Freedom
Oasis Family Birthing Center et. al. v. Alabama Department of Public Health
A group of midwives and doctors filed a lawsuit in state court challenging actions by the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH), which imposed a de facto ban on freestanding birth centers throughout Alabama. Birth centers provide midwifery care to low-risk pregnant patients, a model of care that is proven to be safe and beneficial to patients. Despite that, ADPH took actions that forced one center to abruptly shut down in 2023 despite a perfect safety record, and then passed onerous regulations that would require birth centers to meet hospital-like standards, preventing birth centers from operating in the state. After hearing oral argument in late September 2023, the Circuit Court of Montgomery County granted our request for a Preliminary Injunction on September 30, 2023, preventing ADPH from refusing to timely license freestanding birth centers that comply with nationally-recognized safety standards for birth centers while litigation continues.
In May 2025, the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court issued judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor on Plaintiffs’ threshold claim that freestanding birth centers are not “hospitals” under Alabama law and, therefore, the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH) has no authority to require them to be licensed as such.
However, on appeal in January 2026, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision, and in May 2026, the Alabama Supreme Court declined the Plaintiffs’ request for further review, leaving the Civil Appeals Court’s decision in place.
The case now returns to the Circuit Court of Montgomery County where Plaintiffs will continue litigating other claims arguing that, even if ADPH has authority to require licenses for birth centers, the specific licensing rules ADPH adopted for freestanding birth centers unlawfully burden Alabamians’ access to birth center care.
Explore case
Alabama
Sep 2026
Reproductive Freedom
Oasis Family Birthing Center et. al. v. Alabama Department of Public Health
A group of midwives and doctors filed a lawsuit in state court challenging actions by the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH), which imposed a de facto ban on freestanding birth centers throughout Alabama. Birth centers provide midwifery care to low-risk pregnant patients, a model of care that is proven to be safe and beneficial to patients. Despite that, ADPH took actions that forced one center to abruptly shut down in 2023 despite a perfect safety record, and then passed onerous regulations that would require birth centers to meet hospital-like standards, preventing birth centers from operating in the state. After hearing oral argument in late September 2023, the Circuit Court of Montgomery County granted our request for a Preliminary Injunction on September 30, 2023, preventing ADPH from refusing to timely license freestanding birth centers that comply with nationally-recognized safety standards for birth centers while litigation continues.
In May 2025, the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court issued judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor on Plaintiffs’ threshold claim that freestanding birth centers are not “hospitals” under Alabama law and, therefore, the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH) has no authority to require them to be licensed as such.
However, on appeal in January 2026, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision, and in May 2026, the Alabama Supreme Court declined the Plaintiffs’ request for further review, leaving the Civil Appeals Court’s decision in place.
The case now returns to the Circuit Court of Montgomery County where Plaintiffs will continue litigating other claims arguing that, even if ADPH has authority to require licenses for birth centers, the specific licensing rules ADPH adopted for freestanding birth centers unlawfully burden Alabamians’ access to birth center care.