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 3, 2026
Updated September 10, 2026
Ongoing
Updated September 8, 2026
Closed
Updated August 31, 2026
Featured
Ohio
Nov 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.
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of naturalized American citizens to improper investigations questioning their voting eligibility, and they’re using outdated, faulty data and methods to do so.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.
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
1,767 Court Cases
Michigan
Sep 2024
Voting Rights
ACLU of Michigan v. Froman
Michigan requires boards of county canvassers to certify the results of an election within 14 days after the election based on the total number of votes reported from each location. The law doesn’t allow them to withhold certification. Kalamazoo Board of County Canvassers member, Robert Froman, has made clear that he would decline to certify the November 2024 election under certain circumstances. This lawsuit asks the state’s courts to make clear that Mr. Froman is duty bound to certify the election based on the number of votes reported.
Explore case
Michigan
Sep 2024
Voting Rights
ACLU of Michigan v. Froman
Michigan requires boards of county canvassers to certify the results of an election within 14 days after the election based on the total number of votes reported from each location. The law doesn’t allow them to withhold certification. Kalamazoo Board of County Canvassers member, Robert Froman, has made clear that he would decline to certify the November 2024 election under certain circumstances. This lawsuit asks the state’s courts to make clear that Mr. Froman is duty bound to certify the election based on the number of votes reported.
Texas
Sep 2024
Free Speech
Little v. Llano County
On September 10, 2024, the ACLU and the ACLU of Texas filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to protect the public’s right to access books and ideas at public libraries free from government censorship.
Explore case
Texas
Sep 2024
Free Speech
Little v. Llano County
On September 10, 2024, the ACLU and the ACLU of Texas filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to protect the public’s right to access books and ideas at public libraries free from government censorship.
Georgia
Sep 2024
Voting Rights
Abhiraman v. State Election Board (Amicus)
The Georgia’s State Election Board recently passed two new rules about local election certification that threaten to disenfranchise thousands of Georgia voters. The rule changes are part of a nationwide effort by 2020 election-deniers to obtain positions on county election boards and weaponize certification for partisan ends at the expense of voters.
Explore case
Georgia
Sep 2024
Voting Rights
Abhiraman v. State Election Board (Amicus)
The Georgia’s State Election Board recently passed two new rules about local election certification that threaten to disenfranchise thousands of Georgia voters. The rule changes are part of a nationwide effort by 2020 election-deniers to obtain positions on county election boards and weaponize certification for partisan ends at the expense of voters.
Court Case
Aug 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Capital Punishment
Abdullahi Khalif Noor v. Melissa Andrewjeski
Abdullahi Khalif Noor is a Somali refugee, who was a cab driver living in Seattle when convicted of rape and assault, and sentenced to life imprisonment. He has always maintained his innocence. He challenged his convictions in Washington state courts, arguing that prosecutors had suppressed evidence of his innocence in violation of due process and Brady v. Maryland.
Unsuccessful in the Washington state courts, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. He was again unsuccessful, and sought to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Ordinarily, when a party loses in federal district court they can immediately appeal the decision. But Mr. Noor was barred from doing so because he had not obtained a document Congress has required habeas petitioners receive from federal courts before they can appeal since 1908 — then called a certificate of probable cause, but now called a certificate of appealability (COA).
Explore case
Court Case
Aug 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Capital Punishment
Abdullahi Khalif Noor v. Melissa Andrewjeski
Abdullahi Khalif Noor is a Somali refugee, who was a cab driver living in Seattle when convicted of rape and assault, and sentenced to life imprisonment. He has always maintained his innocence. He challenged his convictions in Washington state courts, arguing that prosecutors had suppressed evidence of his innocence in violation of due process and Brady v. Maryland.
Unsuccessful in the Washington state courts, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. He was again unsuccessful, and sought to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Ordinarily, when a party loses in federal district court they can immediately appeal the decision. But Mr. Noor was barred from doing so because he had not obtained a document Congress has required habeas petitioners receive from federal courts before they can appeal since 1908 — then called a certificate of probable cause, but now called a certificate of appealability (COA).
Delaware
Aug 2024
Voting Rights
Prisoner’s Legal Advocacy Network v. Carney
Right now, an entire class of eligible voters in Delaware — those incarcerated in Delaware facilities while awaiting trial (“pretrial detainees”) or who have been convicted of misdemeanors, which are not disqualifying under state law (together with pretrial detainees, “eligible incarcerated voters”)—have no constitutional means of voting. Delaware does not permit in-person voting in its correctional facilities. And a recent Delaware Supreme Court decision has now foreclosed these voters from voting absentee. This leaves these voters completely disenfranchised ahead of the 2024 elections, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Explore case
Delaware
Aug 2024
Voting Rights
Prisoner’s Legal Advocacy Network v. Carney
Right now, an entire class of eligible voters in Delaware — those incarcerated in Delaware facilities while awaiting trial (“pretrial detainees”) or who have been convicted of misdemeanors, which are not disqualifying under state law (together with pretrial detainees, “eligible incarcerated voters”)—have no constitutional means of voting. Delaware does not permit in-person voting in its correctional facilities. And a recent Delaware Supreme Court decision has now foreclosed these voters from voting absentee. This leaves these voters completely disenfranchised ahead of the 2024 elections, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.