Supreme Court Term 2025-2026
We鈥檙e breaking down the cases we've asked the court to consider this term.
Latest Case Updates
Ongoing
Updated December 10, 2025
Ongoing
Updated December 10, 2025
Ongoing
Updated November 22, 2025
Ongoing
Updated November 10, 2025
Featured
Court Case
Dec 2025
National Security
Human Rights
FOIA Case Seeking the Trump Administration鈥檚 Legal Justification for Deadly Boat Strikes
The Department of Justice鈥檚 Office of Legal Counsel (鈥淥LC鈥) authored a legal opinion that reportedly claims to justify the Trump administration鈥檚 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 鈥渁rmed conflict鈥 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鈥檚 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鈥攁n agency that Congress specifically established to be bipartisan and independent鈥攖o 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鈥檚 latest districting maps fail to reflect the reality of the state鈥檚 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.
Mississippi
Aug 2025
Voting Rights
White v. Mississippi State Board of Elections
District lines used to elect Mississippi鈥檚 Supreme Court have gone unchanged for more than 35 years. We鈥檙e 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鈥檚 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 老熟女午夜福利, 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鈥檚 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.
All Cases
1,638 Court Cases
U.S. Supreme Court
Jul 2025
Capital Punishment
Glossip v. Oklahoma
This long-running Oklahoma death-penalty case raised two issues:
1) Would the State of Oklahoma be permitted to execute Glossip, despite overwhelming evidence that he is innocent, and despite a confession by the State鈥檚 Attorney General that the state obtained his conviction by hiding crucial evidence impeaching its star witness?; and
2) Would the Court reaffirm its longstanding commitment to Due-Process-Clause precedent requiring the government to disclose favorable evidence in its possession to the accused and to correct false testimony introduced against the accused?
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jul 2025
Capital Punishment
Glossip v. Oklahoma
This long-running Oklahoma death-penalty case raised two issues:
1) Would the State of Oklahoma be permitted to execute Glossip, despite overwhelming evidence that he is innocent, and despite a confession by the State鈥檚 Attorney General that the state obtained his conviction by hiding crucial evidence impeaching its star witness?; and
2) Would the Court reaffirm its longstanding commitment to Due-Process-Clause precedent requiring the government to disclose favorable evidence in its possession to the accused and to correct false testimony introduced against the accused?
U.S. Supreme Court
Jul 2025
Capital Punishment
Tabler v. Lumpkin
In Tabler v. Lumpkin, the ACLU represented a Texas death row prisoner whose lawyers refused to represent him at a hearing to determine his capacity to decide whether to give up his state post-conviction appeals, leaving him effectively unrepresented at that hearing. Our petition asked the Supreme Court to review Richard Tabler鈥檚 case and to hold that when a defendant鈥檚 lawyers abandon him, his waiver of further appeals should not bar his access to federal habeas corpus review of the constitutionality of his conviction.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jul 2025
Capital Punishment
Tabler v. Lumpkin
In Tabler v. Lumpkin, the ACLU represented a Texas death row prisoner whose lawyers refused to represent him at a hearing to determine his capacity to decide whether to give up his state post-conviction appeals, leaving him effectively unrepresented at that hearing. Our petition asked the Supreme Court to review Richard Tabler鈥檚 case and to hold that when a defendant鈥檚 lawyers abandon him, his waiver of further appeals should not bar his access to federal habeas corpus review of the constitutionality of his conviction.
Court Case
Jul 2025
Immigrants' Rights
Nyynkpao Banyee v. Pamela Bondi, et al
Explore case
Court Case
Jul 2025
Immigrants' Rights
Nyynkpao Banyee v. Pamela Bondi, et al
Florida
Jul 2025
Immigrants' Rights
FLORIDA IMMIGRANT COALITION v. UTHMEIER
The 老熟女午夜福利 of Florida, ACLU Immigrants鈥 Rights Project, Americans for Immigrant Justice, and the Community Justice Project filed a federal class action lawsuit challenging Florida鈥檚 new extreme anti-immigrant law, Senate Bill 4C (SB 4C), which authorizes state and local law enforcement to imprison people based on their manner of entering the country 鈥 powers the Constitution reserves exclusively to the federal government.
Explore case
Florida
Jul 2025
Immigrants' Rights
FLORIDA IMMIGRANT COALITION v. UTHMEIER
The 老熟女午夜福利 of Florida, ACLU Immigrants鈥 Rights Project, Americans for Immigrant Justice, and the Community Justice Project filed a federal class action lawsuit challenging Florida鈥檚 new extreme anti-immigrant law, Senate Bill 4C (SB 4C), which authorizes state and local law enforcement to imprison people based on their manner of entering the country 鈥 powers the Constitution reserves exclusively to the federal government.
Minnesota Supreme Court
Jul 2025
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter鈥檚 privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer鈥檚 subpoenas.
Explore case
Minnesota Supreme Court
Jul 2025
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter鈥檚 privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer鈥檚 subpoenas.