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 March 16, 2026
Ongoing
Updated March 12, 2026
Ongoing
Updated February 25, 2026
Ongoing
Updated February 18, 2026
Featured
U.S. Supreme Court
Feb 2026
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.
Missouri
Feb 2026
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.
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
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.
All Cases
1,686 Court Cases
Oklahoma
Feb 2026
LGBTQ Rights
Bridge v. Oklahoma State Department of Education
Thousands of school districts across the country operate with nondiscrimination policies inclusive of their transgender students, including the legal right for these students to access facilities (bathrooms, locker rooms, etc.) consistent with their gender identity. These policies help protect transgender students from harassment, being isolated from their peers, and thrive in a learning environment that believes in their fundamental rights.
Explore case
Oklahoma
Feb 2026
LGBTQ Rights
Bridge v. Oklahoma State Department of Education
Thousands of school districts across the country operate with nondiscrimination policies inclusive of their transgender students, including the legal right for these students to access facilities (bathrooms, locker rooms, etc.) consistent with their gender identity. These policies help protect transgender students from harassment, being isolated from their peers, and thrive in a learning environment that believes in their fundamental rights.
Court Case
Feb 2026
LGBTQ Rights
Hammons v. UMMS
Jesse Hammons was denied a commonly performed medical procedure at the University of Maryland St. Joseph Medical Center because he is transgender. The taxpayer-owned hospital claims that providing Hammons with medical care would be a violation of their religious beliefs.
Explore case
Court Case
Feb 2026
LGBTQ Rights
Hammons v. UMMS
Jesse Hammons was denied a commonly performed medical procedure at the University of Maryland St. Joseph Medical Center because he is transgender. The taxpayer-owned hospital claims that providing Hammons with medical care would be a violation of their religious beliefs.
U.S. Supreme Court
Feb 2026
LGBTQ Rights
West Virginia v. B.P.J.
Becky is a student in West Virginia who is starting high school. Three years ago, as Becky was preparing to begin middle school, West Virginia passed a law categorically banning transgender girls from participating in all school sports. Becky loves being part of a team and wanted to be able to participate in cross-country and track and field with her friends. She sued, arguing that West Virginia's law violated the Constitution and Title IX as applied to her, especially because she has received medication from the onset of puberty and has never experienced any physiological changes associated with puberty for boys. As a result of an injunction issued by the lower courts, she has been able to participate in middle school cross-country and track and field for the past three years. Becky and her mother are represented by the ACLU, the ACLU of West Virginia, Lambda Legal and Cooley LLP.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Feb 2026
LGBTQ Rights
West Virginia v. B.P.J.
Becky is a student in West Virginia who is starting high school. Three years ago, as Becky was preparing to begin middle school, West Virginia passed a law categorically banning transgender girls from participating in all school sports. Becky loves being part of a team and wanted to be able to participate in cross-country and track and field with her friends. She sued, arguing that West Virginia's law violated the Constitution and Title IX as applied to her, especially because she has received medication from the onset of puberty and has never experienced any physiological changes associated with puberty for boys. As a result of an injunction issued by the lower courts, she has been able to participate in middle school cross-country and track and field for the past three years. Becky and her mother are represented by the ACLU, the ACLU of West Virginia, Lambda Legal and Cooley LLP.
Indiana
Feb 2026
LGBTQ Rights
K.C. v. Medical Licensing Board of Indiana
Four Hoosier families, joined by medical providers, are challenging an Indiana law passed in April 2023 barring access to gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Indiana is home to over 4,000 transgender adolescents and the health care targeted by this law is supported by the entire mainstream of the medical community.
Explore case
Indiana
Feb 2026
LGBTQ Rights
K.C. v. Medical Licensing Board of Indiana
Four Hoosier families, joined by medical providers, are challenging an Indiana law passed in April 2023 barring access to gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Indiana is home to over 4,000 transgender adolescents and the health care targeted by this law is supported by the entire mainstream of the medical community.
Ohio
Feb 2026
Voting Rights
League of Women Voters of Ohio v. LaRose
Voting-rights and civil-rights organizations filed a federal lawsuit challenging a new Ohio law that threatens to wrongly strip eligible citizens—particularly naturalized citizens—of their right to vote.
The case arises from Ohio Senate Bill 293 (SB 293), a law that mandates aggressive, automated purges of Ohio’s voter rolls based on flawed citizenship data. Under SB 293, state officials are required to conduct frequent database checks and cancel voter registrations for people flagged as “noncitizens”—often without advance notice or a meaningful opportunity to correct mistakes.
Plaintiffs brought this case to stop a system that places thousands of eligible voters at risk of disenfranchisement and undermines fundamental protections guaranteed by federal law and the U.S. Constitution.
Explore case
Ohio
Feb 2026
Voting Rights
League of Women Voters of Ohio v. LaRose
Voting-rights and civil-rights organizations filed a federal lawsuit challenging a new Ohio law that threatens to wrongly strip eligible citizens—particularly naturalized citizens—of their right to vote.
The case arises from Ohio Senate Bill 293 (SB 293), a law that mandates aggressive, automated purges of Ohio’s voter rolls based on flawed citizenship data. Under SB 293, state officials are required to conduct frequent database checks and cancel voter registrations for people flagged as “noncitizens”—often without advance notice or a meaningful opportunity to correct mistakes.
Plaintiffs brought this case to stop a system that places thousands of eligible voters at risk of disenfranchisement and undermines fundamental protections guaranteed by federal law and the U.S. Constitution.