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 October 21, 2025
Ongoing
Updated October 17, 2025
Ongoing
Updated October 17, 2025
Closed
Updated September 26, 2025
Featured
U.S. Supreme Court
Oct 2025
Voting Rights
State Board of Election Commissioners v. Mississippi State Conference of the NAACP
Mississippi has a growing Black population, which is already the largest Black population percentage of any state in the country. Yet. Black Mississippians continue to be significantly under-represented in the state legislature, as Mississippi’s latest districting maps fail to reflect the reality of the state’s changing demographics. During the 2022 redistricting process, the Mississippi legislature refused to create any new districts where Black voters have a chance to elect their preferred representative. The current district lines therefore dilute the voting power of Black Mississippians and continue to deprive them of political representation that is responsive to their needs and concerns, including severe disparities in education and healthcare.
U.S. Supreme Court
Oct 2025
Voting Rights
Louisiana v. Callais (Callais v. Landry)
Whether the congressional map Louisiana adopted to cure a Voting Rights Act violation in Robinson v. Ardoin is itself unlawful as a gerrymander.
Washington, D.C.
Sep 2025
Voting Rights
League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump
On March 25, 2025, in a sweeping and unprecedented Executive Order, President Trump attempted to usurp the power to regulate federal elections from Congress and the States. Among other things, the Executive Order directs the Election Assistance Commission—an agency that Congress specifically established to be bipartisan and independent—to require voters to show a passport or other citizenship documentation in order to register to vote in federal elections. If implemented, the Executive Order would threaten the ability of millions of eligible Americans to register and vote and upend the administration of federal elections.
On behalf of leading voter registration organizations and advocacy organizations, the ACLU and co-counsel filed a lawsuit to block the Executive Order as an unconstitutional power grab.
Missouri
Sep 2025
Voting Rights
Wise v. Missouri
In unprecedented fashion, the State of Missouri has redrawn the district lines used for electing members of Congress for a second time this decade. These new district lines are gerrymandered and will harm political representation for all Missourians, particularly Black residents in Kansas City, who have been divided along racial lines.
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2025
Voting Rights
Racial Justice
Allen v. Milligan
Whether Alabama’s congressional districts violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because they discriminate against Black voters. We succeeded in winning a new map for 2024 elections which, for the first time, has two congressional district that provide Black voters a fair opportunity to elect candidates of their choosing despite multiple attempts by Alabama to stop us at the Supreme Court. Despite this win, Alabama is still defending its discriminatory map, and a trial was held in February 2025 to determine the map for the rest of the decade.
In May 2025, a federal court ruled that Alabama's 2023 congressional map both violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and was enacted by the Alabama Legislature with racially discriminatory intent.
Mississippi
Aug 2025
Voting Rights
White v. Mississippi State Board of Elections
District lines used to elect Mississippi’s Supreme Court have gone unchanged for more than 35 years. We’re suing because this dilutes the voting strength of Black residents in state Supreme Court elections, in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution.
Louisiana
Aug 2025
Voting Rights
Nairne v. Landry
Nairne v. Landry poses a challenge under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to Louisiana’s House and Senate legislative maps on behalf of plaintiff Black voters and Black voters across the state.
Ohio
Jul 2025
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.
U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 2024
Reproductive Freedom
Idaho and Moyle, et al. v. United States
Idaho and Moyle, et al. v. United States was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court by Idaho politicians seeking to disregard a federal statute — the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) — and put doctors in jail for providing pregnant patients necessary emergency medical care. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on this case on April 24, 2024. The Court’s ultimate decision will impact access to this essential care across the country.
All Cases
1,623 Court Cases
Court Case
Oct 2020
Women's Rights
OCA v. Carson
On October 22, 2020, the ACLU filed suit on behalf of Open Communities Alliance and SouthCoast Fair Housing against the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), challenging its new regulation on disparate impact discrimination under the Fair Housing Act.
Explore case
Court Case
Oct 2020
Women's Rights
OCA v. Carson
On October 22, 2020, the ACLU filed suit on behalf of Open Communities Alliance and SouthCoast Fair Housing against the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), challenging its new regulation on disparate impact discrimination under the Fair Housing Act.
Court Case
Oct 2020
Immigrants' Rights
Saravia v. Barr
In June 2017, the ACLU, ACLU of NC, and Cooley LLP sued then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement for using unsubstantiated claims of gang affiliation to illegally detain teenagers in jail-like facilities in California.
Explore case
Court Case
Oct 2020
Immigrants' Rights
Saravia v. Barr
In June 2017, the ACLU, ACLU of NC, and Cooley LLP sued then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement for using unsubstantiated claims of gang affiliation to illegally detain teenagers in jail-like facilities in California.
Alaska Supreme Court
Oct 2020
Voting Rights
Arctic Village Council v. Meyer
The lawsuit, Arctic Village Council v. Meyer, sought to waive a provision of state law for the November general election that requires voters who submit a mail-in absentee ballot to have a witness sign their ballot return envelope even in the midst of a highly contagious and deadly pandemic.
Explore case
Alaska Supreme Court
Oct 2020
Voting Rights
Arctic Village Council v. Meyer
The lawsuit, Arctic Village Council v. Meyer, sought to waive a provision of state law for the November general election that requires voters who submit a mail-in absentee ballot to have a witness sign their ballot return envelope even in the midst of a highly contagious and deadly pandemic.
Court Case
Oct 2020
Voting Rights
Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar
Explore case
Court Case
Oct 2020
Voting Rights
Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar
Court Case
Oct 2020
National Security
ACLU v. DOD - FOIA Case Seeking Trump Administration's Secret Rules for Lethal Strikes Abroad
In October 2017, the Trump administration secretly adopted rules governing the use of lethal force in drone strikes and other killings abroad. These rules, known as the “Principles, Standards, and Procedures,” reportedly loosen Obama-era safeguards against civilian casualties outside “areas of active hostilities.” On October 30, 2017, the ACLU filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act seeking public disclosure of these new rules. When the government failed to release them, we filed a lawsuit on December 21, 2017, to force their disclosure. The government responded by refusing even to acknowledge that the new rules exist. We challenged this unjustifiable secrecy—and on September 29, 2020, a federal court ordered that the government cannot keep the existence of its new killing rules a secret. Our fight to expose the contents of the rules goes on.
Explore case
Court Case
Oct 2020
National Security
ACLU v. DOD - FOIA Case Seeking Trump Administration's Secret Rules for Lethal Strikes Abroad
In October 2017, the Trump administration secretly adopted rules governing the use of lethal force in drone strikes and other killings abroad. These rules, known as the “Principles, Standards, and Procedures,” reportedly loosen Obama-era safeguards against civilian casualties outside “areas of active hostilities.” On October 30, 2017, the ACLU filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act seeking public disclosure of these new rules. When the government failed to release them, we filed a lawsuit on December 21, 2017, to force their disclosure. The government responded by refusing even to acknowledge that the new rules exist. We challenged this unjustifiable secrecy—and on September 29, 2020, a federal court ordered that the government cannot keep the existence of its new killing rules a secret. Our fight to expose the contents of the rules goes on.