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
Ongoing
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of naturalized American citizens to improper investigations questioning their voting eligibility, and they’re using outdated, faulty data and methods to do so.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
1,766 Court Cases
Virginia
Apr 2026
Privacy & Technology
Schmidt v. Norfolk
Whether Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) systems violate individuals’ expectations of privacy under the Fourth Amendment.
Explore case
Virginia
Apr 2026
Privacy & Technology
Schmidt v. Norfolk
Whether Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) systems violate individuals’ expectations of privacy under the Fourth Amendment.
Rhode Island
Apr 2026
Voting Rights
United States v. Amore
The Department of Justice (DOJ) sued the State of Rhode Island, seeking private, confidential voter data. DOJ’s efforts appear to be part of an effort to build a national voter database without congressional authorization and to improperly question the validity of state voter rolls.
Explore case
Rhode Island
Apr 2026
Voting Rights
United States v. Amore
The Department of Justice (DOJ) sued the State of Rhode Island, seeking private, confidential voter data. DOJ’s efforts appear to be part of an effort to build a national voter database without congressional authorization and to improperly question the validity of state voter rolls.
Nevada
Apr 2026
Voting Rights
United States v. Aguilar
The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) sued Nevada demanding the release of its full, unredacted voter file, which includes the highly sensitive and personal data of every voter in the state. This suit appears to be part of DOJ’s effort to build a national voter database without congressional authorization, improperly question the validity of state voter rolls, and intimidate eligible voters in Nevada and around the country.
Explore case
Nevada
Apr 2026
Voting Rights
United States v. Aguilar
The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) sued Nevada demanding the release of its full, unredacted voter file, which includes the highly sensitive and personal data of every voter in the state. This suit appears to be part of DOJ’s effort to build a national voter database without congressional authorization, improperly question the validity of state voter rolls, and intimidate eligible voters in Nevada and around the country.
California
Apr 2026
Voting Rights
United States v. Weber
Representing the League of Women Voters of California, the ACLU Voting Rights Project, ACLU of Northern California, and ACLU of Southern California have filed a motion to intervene in a federal lawsuit over the federal government’s demand that California turn over its entire voter registration rolls, including with voters’ sensitive personal data such as drivers’ license numbers and partial social security numbers.
Explore case
California
Apr 2026
Voting Rights
United States v. Weber
Representing the League of Women Voters of California, the ACLU Voting Rights Project, ACLU of Northern California, and ACLU of Southern California have filed a motion to intervene in a federal lawsuit over the federal government’s demand that California turn over its entire voter registration rolls, including with voters’ sensitive personal data such as drivers’ license numbers and partial social security numbers.
Maine
Apr 2026
Immigrants' Rights
Carvajal-Muñoz v. Ravencamp
This lawsuit seeks to use several tools, including a state civil rights act, to hold federal immigration agents accountable for violating the rights of a Portland resident who held a lawful visa. In January 2026, federal immigration officers descended on Maine as part of what the federal government has called “Operation Catch the Day.” The federal government claimed the operation targeted “the worst of the worst criminal aliens,” yet in fact it targeted many people who had committed no crimes. Among them was our client, Juan Sebastián Carvajal-Muñoz, a Portland-based civil engineer with a valid visa, who was seized by federal agents.
With the help of the ACLU and other law firms, Mr. Carvajal-Muñoz filed suit to hold the federal agents accountable. This case has significant implications: it could confirm that state laws can authorize individuals to hold federal officials accountable for violating rights protected by the U.S. Constitution.
Explore case
Maine
Apr 2026
Immigrants' Rights
Carvajal-Muñoz v. Ravencamp
This lawsuit seeks to use several tools, including a state civil rights act, to hold federal immigration agents accountable for violating the rights of a Portland resident who held a lawful visa. In January 2026, federal immigration officers descended on Maine as part of what the federal government has called “Operation Catch the Day.” The federal government claimed the operation targeted “the worst of the worst criminal aliens,” yet in fact it targeted many people who had committed no crimes. Among them was our client, Juan Sebastián Carvajal-Muñoz, a Portland-based civil engineer with a valid visa, who was seized by federal agents.
With the help of the ACLU and other law firms, Mr. Carvajal-Muñoz filed suit to hold the federal agents accountable. This case has significant implications: it could confirm that state laws can authorize individuals to hold federal officials accountable for violating rights protected by the U.S. Constitution.