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
Feb 2025
Privacy & Technology
U.S. DOGE Service Access to Sensitive Agency Records Systems Multiagency FOIA
There are serious privacy concerns raised by reports that the United States DOGE (“Department of Government Efficiency”) Service (“USDS”) has gained access to federal agency systems, including those housing sensitive information like federal payment data, student loan data or federal employee records, and may be using artificial intelligence technology in analyzing them. The ACLU submitted a FOIA request to more than 40 federal agencies to provide the public with information on what federal records the agencies have provided to or been asked for by the USDS and if sensitive information and key decision-making has been outsourced to unvetted technology.
Explore case
Court Case
Feb 2025
Privacy & Technology
U.S. DOGE Service Access to Sensitive Agency Records Systems Multiagency FOIA
There are serious privacy concerns raised by reports that the United States DOGE (“Department of Government Efficiency”) Service (“USDS”) has gained access to federal agency systems, including those housing sensitive information like federal payment data, student loan data or federal employee records, and may be using artificial intelligence technology in analyzing them. The ACLU submitted a FOIA request to more than 40 federal agencies to provide the public with information on what federal records the agencies have provided to or been asked for by the USDS and if sensitive information and key decision-making has been outsourced to unvetted technology.
Court Case
Feb 2025
Immigrants' Rights
ACLU FOIA Suit for ICE’s Updated Solitary Confinement Policy
ICE’s use of special management units, or solitary confinement, has prompted active concern and attention from Congress, the media, and advocates. On Dec. 6, 2024, ICE announced that it had issued policy updates for the use of special management units (SMU), or solitary confinement cells, for detained immigrants. ICE, however, has not made a copy of the updated policy publicly available. We’ve sued to obtain a copy of this policy to better defend immigrants subject to solitary confinement in detention.
Explore case
Court Case
Feb 2025
Immigrants' Rights
ACLU FOIA Suit for ICE’s Updated Solitary Confinement Policy
ICE’s use of special management units, or solitary confinement, has prompted active concern and attention from Congress, the media, and advocates. On Dec. 6, 2024, ICE announced that it had issued policy updates for the use of special management units (SMU), or solitary confinement cells, for detained immigrants. ICE, however, has not made a copy of the updated policy publicly available. We’ve sued to obtain a copy of this policy to better defend immigrants subject to solitary confinement in detention.
Court Case
Feb 2025
Immigrants' Rights
RAICES v. Noem
Immigrants’ rights advocates sued the Trump administration over the president’s recent proclamation aimed at completely shutting down asylum at the border, a move that puts thousands of lives at risk.
Explore case
Court Case
Feb 2025
Immigrants' Rights
RAICES v. Noem
Immigrants’ rights advocates sued the Trump administration over the president’s recent proclamation aimed at completely shutting down asylum at the border, a move that puts thousands of lives at risk.
Washington, D.C.
Feb 2025
Immigrants' Rights
Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services v. Kristi Noem
Explore case
Washington, D.C.
Feb 2025
Immigrants' Rights
Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services v. Kristi Noem
Oregon Supreme Court
Feb 2025
Prisoners' Rights
Huskey v. Oregon Department of Corrections
This case in the Oregon Supreme Court centers on whether Article I, Section 41(3) of the Oregon Constitution, which provides that Oregon prisoners lack legally enforceable rights to prison jobs and training, bars prisoners from collecting damages relating to lost prison jobs and training caused by the alleged breach of a settlement agreement by prison officials. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Oregon, filed an amicus brief arguing that plaintiff Arnold Huskey, an incarcerated individual whose identity was used in Department of Corrections training materials, is entitled to damages notwithstanding Article I, Section 41(3), because plaintiffs in contract disputes never have to show standalone legal rights to the damages they claim. Instead, they need only show that the damages were reasonably foreseeable consequences of the alleged breach of contract.
Explore case
Oregon Supreme Court
Feb 2025
Prisoners' Rights
Huskey v. Oregon Department of Corrections
This case in the Oregon Supreme Court centers on whether Article I, Section 41(3) of the Oregon Constitution, which provides that Oregon prisoners lack legally enforceable rights to prison jobs and training, bars prisoners from collecting damages relating to lost prison jobs and training caused by the alleged breach of a settlement agreement by prison officials. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Oregon, filed an amicus brief arguing that plaintiff Arnold Huskey, an incarcerated individual whose identity was used in Department of Corrections training materials, is entitled to damages notwithstanding Article I, Section 41(3), because plaintiffs in contract disputes never have to show standalone legal rights to the damages they claim. Instead, they need only show that the damages were reasonably foreseeable consequences of the alleged breach of contract.