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of naturalized American citizens to improper investigations questioning their voting eligibility, and they’re using outdated, faulty data and methods to do so.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
Ohio
Aug 2026
Reproductive Freedom
Women's Medical Group Professional Corp. v. Vanderhoff
Ohio clinics must maintain an ambulatory surgical facility license to provide procedural abortion. Ohio imposes medically unnecessary and burdensome licensing requirements that make it difficult, if not impossible, for abortion clinics to maintain their licenses.
Explore case
Ohio
Aug 2026
Reproductive Freedom
Women's Medical Group Professional Corp. v. Vanderhoff
Ohio clinics must maintain an ambulatory surgical facility license to provide procedural abortion. Ohio imposes medically unnecessary and burdensome licensing requirements that make it difficult, if not impossible, for abortion clinics to maintain their licenses.
New York
Aug 2026
National Security
ACLU v. DOJ – FOIA Lawsuit Seeking Records About the Use of JTTFs and Fusion Centers to Target Protesters and Communities of Color
Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) and fusion centers are joint federal-state law enforcement intelligence hubs with a long history of investigating, collecting, and disseminating information on protesters and communities of color, but the public has little information about how these entities work and their impact on our rights. In May 2024, the ACLU filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act seeking the release of records on the use of JTTFs and fusion centers to target protesters and communities of color and the adequacy of the privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties policies that apply to them. When the government failed to release records, we filed suit in July 2024 to compel public disclosure of these documents. After the government produced records, the ACLU dismissed the case in July 2025.
Explore case
New York
Aug 2026
National Security
ACLU v. DOJ – FOIA Lawsuit Seeking Records About the Use of JTTFs and Fusion Centers to Target Protesters and Communities of Color
Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) and fusion centers are joint federal-state law enforcement intelligence hubs with a long history of investigating, collecting, and disseminating information on protesters and communities of color, but the public has little information about how these entities work and their impact on our rights. In May 2024, the ACLU filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act seeking the release of records on the use of JTTFs and fusion centers to target protesters and communities of color and the adequacy of the privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties policies that apply to them. When the government failed to release records, we filed suit in July 2024 to compel public disclosure of these documents. After the government produced records, the ACLU dismissed the case in July 2025.
Minnesota Supreme Court
Aug 2026
Criminal Law Reform
State v. Engel
The Minnesota Supreme Court is poised to decide whether there are any circumstances in which someone subjected to an unconstitutional traffic stop can suppress evidence that he temporarily avoided the police when they initiated the unconstitutional stop. The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that evidence of even temporary “flight” can never be suppressed—even when someone simply delays acquiescing to an unconstitutional traffic stop—on the theory that fleeing from the police is a crime. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Minnesota and the law firm Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, filed an amicus brief arguing that Article I, Sections 8 and 10 of the Minnesota Constitution—which guarantee Minnesotans remedies for constitutional violations and protect them from unreasonable searches and seizures—require a broad application of the exclusionary rule. Accordingly, we argue that the Court should use a flexible, multi-factor test that can allow for suppression of evidence where a suspect, as in this case, responds to an illegal stop or seizure with nonviolent attempts to keep himself safe.
Explore case
Minnesota Supreme Court
Aug 2026
Criminal Law Reform
State v. Engel
The Minnesota Supreme Court is poised to decide whether there are any circumstances in which someone subjected to an unconstitutional traffic stop can suppress evidence that he temporarily avoided the police when they initiated the unconstitutional stop. The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that evidence of even temporary “flight” can never be suppressed—even when someone simply delays acquiescing to an unconstitutional traffic stop—on the theory that fleeing from the police is a crime. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Minnesota and the law firm Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, filed an amicus brief arguing that Article I, Sections 8 and 10 of the Minnesota Constitution—which guarantee Minnesotans remedies for constitutional violations and protect them from unreasonable searches and seizures—require a broad application of the exclusionary rule. Accordingly, we argue that the Court should use a flexible, multi-factor test that can allow for suppression of evidence where a suspect, as in this case, responds to an illegal stop or seizure with nonviolent attempts to keep himself safe.
Massachusetts
Aug 2026
Voting Rights
United States v. Galvin
The Department of Justice (DOJ) sued the Massachusetts Secretary of State Galvin, seeking private, confidential voter data. DOJ’s efforts appear to be part of an effort to build a national voter database without congressional authorization and to improperly question the validity of state voter rolls.
Explore case
Massachusetts
Aug 2026
Voting Rights
United States v. Galvin
The Department of Justice (DOJ) sued the Massachusetts Secretary of State Galvin, seeking private, confidential voter data. DOJ’s efforts appear to be part of an effort to build a national voter database without congressional authorization and to improperly question the validity of state voter rolls.