Supreme Court Term 2025-2026
We’re breaking down the cases we've asked the court to consider this term.
Latest Case Updates
Ongoing
Updated November 2, 2026
Updated September 10, 2026
Ongoing
Updated September 8, 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of naturalized American citizens to improper investigations questioning their voting eligibility, and they’re using outdated, faulty data and methods to do so.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
1,764 Court Cases
Idaho
Feb 2026
Criminal Law Reform
Immigrants' Rights
Rodriguez, et al. v. Porter, et al.
On February 10, 2026, CLRP, along with the ACLU of Idaho and Wendy J. Olson, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Idaho, and partner at Stoel Rives, filed a putative class action lawsuit challenging an immigration raid carried out at a popular family event in Wilder, Idaho in October 2025.
Explore case
Idaho
Feb 2026
Criminal Law Reform
Immigrants' Rights
Rodriguez, et al. v. Porter, et al.
On February 10, 2026, CLRP, along with the ACLU of Idaho and Wendy J. Olson, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Idaho, and partner at Stoel Rives, filed a putative class action lawsuit challenging an immigration raid carried out at a popular family event in Wilder, Idaho in October 2025.
Missouri
Feb 2026
Voting Rights
Missouri v. U.S. Department of Commerce
A coalition of civil rights and immigrant-rights organizations has moved to intervene as defendants in a lawsuit that threatens to dismantle the Constitution’s long-standing requirement that the decennial census count all people living in the United States. Missouri asks the court to exclude undocumented immigrants and people living in the country on temporary visas from the census count used to determine congressional representation—an unprecedented move that would upend more than two centuries of constitutional practice.
Explore case
Missouri
Feb 2026
Voting Rights
Missouri v. U.S. Department of Commerce
A coalition of civil rights and immigrant-rights organizations has moved to intervene as defendants in a lawsuit that threatens to dismantle the Constitution’s long-standing requirement that the decennial census count all people living in the United States. Missouri asks the court to exclude undocumented immigrants and people living in the country on temporary visas from the census count used to determine congressional representation—an unprecedented move that would upend more than two centuries of constitutional practice.
Arizona
Feb 2026
Reproductive Freedom
Gill et al. v. State of Arizona
A group of Arizona advanced practice nurses filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s ban on the provision of abortion by trained advanced practice clinicians (APCs) such as nurse practitioners and certified nurse midwives. The lawsuit, brought on behalf of the nurses by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Arizona, and the law firm Papetti Samuels Weiss McKirgan LLP, argues that the APC ban violates Arizonans’ constitutional right to abortion access, established by voters in 2024, by arbitrarily restricting their choice of provider and, more broadly, making abortion less available in the state.
Explore case
Arizona
Feb 2026
Reproductive Freedom
Gill et al. v. State of Arizona
A group of Arizona advanced practice nurses filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s ban on the provision of abortion by trained advanced practice clinicians (APCs) such as nurse practitioners and certified nurse midwives. The lawsuit, brought on behalf of the nurses by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Arizona, and the law firm Papetti Samuels Weiss McKirgan LLP, argues that the APC ban violates Arizonans’ constitutional right to abortion access, established by voters in 2024, by arbitrarily restricting their choice of provider and, more broadly, making abortion less available in the state.
Florida
Feb 2026
Voting Rights
Hispanic Federation v. Byrd
Of all 50 states, Florida ranks 47th in percentage of its eligible citizens who are registered to vote. Yet, in May 2023, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed SB 7050, which bars any noncitizen — regardless of lawful residence status — from working or volunteering for third-party voter registration organizations (3PVROs) who register eligible Floridians to vote. In practice, the law imposes a $50,000 fine on a 3PVRO for each noncitizen who engages in voter-registration work on a 3PVRO’s behalf. This law would silence and put out of business countless community-based groups that rely on both citizens and noncitizens to help eligible voters in their communities participate in their democracy.
Explore case
Florida
Feb 2026
Voting Rights
Hispanic Federation v. Byrd
Of all 50 states, Florida ranks 47th in percentage of its eligible citizens who are registered to vote. Yet, in May 2023, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed SB 7050, which bars any noncitizen — regardless of lawful residence status — from working or volunteering for third-party voter registration organizations (3PVROs) who register eligible Floridians to vote. In practice, the law imposes a $50,000 fine on a 3PVRO for each noncitizen who engages in voter-registration work on a 3PVRO’s behalf. This law would silence and put out of business countless community-based groups that rely on both citizens and noncitizens to help eligible voters in their communities participate in their democracy.
Court Case
Feb 2026
Reproductive Freedom
Guam Society of OBGYNs v. Guerrero
Guam Society of OBGYNs v. Guerrero is a case originally brought by the ACLU and local attorneys on Guam challenging a 1990 total ban on abortion that imposes criminal penalties on patients, providers and those who speak about abortion. In August of 1990, a federal district court judge for the District of Guam granted the ACLU’s motion for summary judgment and entered a permanent injunction against the ban. After appeals were exhausted, the case was closed.
Over three decades later, on February 1, 2023, Guam Attorney General Douglas B. Moylan filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) motion to vacate the permanent injunction and dismiss the case with prejudice. The ACLU and Guam local counsel opposed the motion, on behalf of the only remaining original plaintiff, and proposed intervenors — the only two providers of abortion in Guam, and Guam-based reproductive justice organization Famalao’an Rights.
On March 24th, 2023, a federal district court denied the Attorney General’s request to vacate the permanent injunction. Attorney General Moylan then appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
On April 28, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order dismissing Attorney General Moylan’s appeal as moot, in light of an October 2023 decision by the Guam Supreme Court holding that the ban had been legislatively repealed. On May 12, 2025, Attorney General Moylan filed a Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, which was subsequently denied on February 3, 2026. As a result, the ban remains permanently enjoined and abortion remains legal in Guam.
Explore case
Court Case
Feb 2026
Reproductive Freedom
Guam Society of OBGYNs v. Guerrero
Guam Society of OBGYNs v. Guerrero is a case originally brought by the ACLU and local attorneys on Guam challenging a 1990 total ban on abortion that imposes criminal penalties on patients, providers and those who speak about abortion. In August of 1990, a federal district court judge for the District of Guam granted the ACLU’s motion for summary judgment and entered a permanent injunction against the ban. After appeals were exhausted, the case was closed.
Over three decades later, on February 1, 2023, Guam Attorney General Douglas B. Moylan filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) motion to vacate the permanent injunction and dismiss the case with prejudice. The ACLU and Guam local counsel opposed the motion, on behalf of the only remaining original plaintiff, and proposed intervenors — the only two providers of abortion in Guam, and Guam-based reproductive justice organization Famalao’an Rights.
On March 24th, 2023, a federal district court denied the Attorney General’s request to vacate the permanent injunction. Attorney General Moylan then appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
On April 28, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order dismissing Attorney General Moylan’s appeal as moot, in light of an October 2023 decision by the Guam Supreme Court holding that the ban had been legislatively repealed. On May 12, 2025, Attorney General Moylan filed a Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, which was subsequently denied on February 3, 2026. As a result, the ban remains permanently enjoined and abortion remains legal in Guam.