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 February 25, 2026
Ongoing
Updated February 18, 2026
Ongoing
Updated January 26, 2026
Ongoing
Updated January 16, 2026
Featured
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.
Mississippi
Dec 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 the current lines crack the Mississippi Delta and dilute the voting strength of Black Mississippians in state Supreme Court elections, in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
Court Case
Dec 2025
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.
U.S. Supreme Court
Dec 2025
Immigrants' Rights
Barbara v. Donald J. Trump
President Trump is attempting to undermine the promise of birthright citizenship to children born on U.S. soil. But the ACLU and partners are fighting to protect the rights of citizens that are plainly stated in the Constitution, federal statute, and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court for more than a century. We’re arguing against the Trump administration in the Supreme Court and are confident we will win.
U.S. Supreme Court
Nov 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.
Washington, D.C.
Oct 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.
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.
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.
All Cases
1,680 Court Cases
Montana
Sep 2025
Voting Rights
Montana Federation of Public Employees v. Montana
Representing Western Native Voice and four sovereign tribal nations in Montana, the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Montana, and Native American Rights Fund (NARF) challenged the latest in a line of Montana laws that hinder Native American participation in the state’s electoral process — SB 490, which drastically limits access to Election Day voter registration (EDR) in Montana. These laws violate a number of provisions in the Montana Constitution: the right to vote, equal protection, and due process.
Explore case
Montana
Sep 2025
Voting Rights
Montana Federation of Public Employees v. Montana
Representing Western Native Voice and four sovereign tribal nations in Montana, the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Montana, and Native American Rights Fund (NARF) challenged the latest in a line of Montana laws that hinder Native American participation in the state’s electoral process — SB 490, which drastically limits access to Election Day voter registration (EDR) in Montana. These laws violate a number of provisions in the Montana Constitution: the right to vote, equal protection, and due process.
Court Case
Sep 2025
National Security
Newsom v. Trump
On June 7, 2025, President Trump federalized members of the California National Guard over the Governor’s objection. He deployed those troops, along with Marines, into Los Angeles to suppress protests against his extreme immigration raids. When California sued, the ACLU and other free-speech organizations filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, explaining that the President’s domestic deployment of the military breaks with this country’s deepest traditions and laws and imperils the First Amendment rights of California’s residents.
Explore case
Court Case
Sep 2025
National Security
Newsom v. Trump
On June 7, 2025, President Trump federalized members of the California National Guard over the Governor’s objection. He deployed those troops, along with Marines, into Los Angeles to suppress protests against his extreme immigration raids. When California sued, the ACLU and other free-speech organizations filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, explaining that the President’s domestic deployment of the military breaks with this country’s deepest traditions and laws and imperils the First Amendment rights of California’s residents.
Georgia
Sep 2025
Free Speech
Guevara v. Francis
Whether a journalist can be detained on the basis of their livestreaming and reporting on law enforcement activities.
Explore case
Georgia
Sep 2025
Free Speech
Guevara v. Francis
Whether a journalist can be detained on the basis of their livestreaming and reporting on law enforcement activities.
Court Case
Sep 2025
Free Speech
Racial Justice
Black Emergency Response Team v. Drummond
This lawsuit challenges an Oklahoma classroom censorship law, HB 1775, that severely restricts public school teachers and students from teaching and learning about race and gender.
Explore case
Court Case
Sep 2025
Free Speech
Racial Justice
Black Emergency Response Team v. Drummond
This lawsuit challenges an Oklahoma classroom censorship law, HB 1775, that severely restricts public school teachers and students from teaching and learning about race and gender.
Minnesota Supreme Court
Sep 2025
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
Sep 2025
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.