Alabama State Conference of the NAACP v. Allen challenges Alabama’s most recently drawn state legislative maps as dilutive of Black voting power in the state in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

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.

A group of health care providers filed a lawsuit in federal court to prevent Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall and district attorneys throughout the state from prosecuting those who assist Alabamians seeking to travel across state lines to access abortion care where abortion is legal. Attorney General Marshall had explicitly threatened that health care providers could face felony charges for assisting Alabamians seeking to travel out of state to obtain abortion where it is legal.  

A group of midwives and doctors filed a lawsuit in state court challenging actions by the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH), which imposed a de facto ban on freestanding birth centers throughout Alabama. Birth centers provide midwifery care to low-risk pregnant patients, a model of care that is proven to be safe and beneficial to patients. Despite that, ADPH took actions that forced one center to abruptly shut down in 2023 despite a perfect safety record, and then passed onerous regulations that would require birth centers to meet hospital-like standards, preventing birth centers from operating in the state. After hearing oral argument in late September 2023, the Circuit Court of Montgomery County granted our request for a Preliminary Injunction on September 30, 2023, preventing ADPH from refusing to timely license freestanding birth centers that comply with nationally-recognized safety standards for birth centers while litigation continues. In May 2025, the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court issued judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor blocking the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH) from regulating freestanding birth centers like hospitals and imposing onerous licensing rules that would have made it effectively impossible for these centers to provide evidence-based midwifery care in the state. The ruling ensured that plaintiffs Oasis Family Birthing Center in Birmingham and Alabama Birth Center in Huntsville, which had been safely operating for the past year, could continue providing midwifery care to pregnant Alabamians. Defendants appealed this ruling in July 2025, and in January 2026, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed the lower court's decision, ruling that ADPH does have authority to require freestanding birth centers to be licensed and regulated as "hospitals." Plaintiffs are seeking further court review of the decision, and Alabama birth centers will continue operating and providing essential care to their patients while litigation is ongoing.