Supreme Court Term 2025-2026

Representing itself and two journalists from Lawfare, the American Civil Liberties Union brought a lawsuit to enforce Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests made to the Social Security Administration and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services regarding changes made to the SAVE program, which has been touted as being used by states in order to remove voters from the registration rolls. While the government made public statements about the SAVE program being updated, the details of those changes, such as the particular programs and databases that have been altered, the ways they have been altered, and the nature and extent of any use and sharing of individuals’ personal information by the federal agencies entrusted with that information, have all been kept secret.

This case asks whether Alabama law enforcement officers can demand physical ID when enforcing an Alabama that allows them to “Stop and Question” people they reasonably suspect of criminal activity. Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has already held that Alabama’s stop-and-question law does not authorize officers to demand physical ID, a federal district court in Alabama certified a question to the Alabama Supreme Court effectively asking the Court to reject that interpretation. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the Cato Institute, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Woods Foundation, and Kaplan Legal Services, filed an amicus brief urging the Alabama Supreme Court to agree with the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling. Our brief argues that the plain meaning of the stop-and-question law—given its title, its text, and the overall structure of the Alabama Code—rules out the possibility that it authorizes demands for physical documents. We also point out that interpreting the stop-and-question law to authorize document demands would render the law unconstitutional under both the U.S. and Alabama Constitutions.

This case challenges the federal government’s authority to remove people from their homes, jobs, and loved ones and remand them to federal prison absent any alleged violation or process.

This case presents the question of whether the execution of a capital defendant with serious mental illness violates Article I, section 6 of the Nevada Constitution, which prohibits cruel or unusual punishment. The ACLU’s Capital Punishment Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Nevada, filed an amicus brief arguing that a plain reading of Article I, section 6 of the Nevada Constitution provides broader protections than the Eighth Amendment and should be interpreted to establish a categorical exemption from execution for this population.