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
Indiana Supreme Court
Sep 2024
Civil Liberties
J.F. v. St. Vincent Hospital
This case in the Indiana Supreme Court concerns whether a case is moot when someone is released from a civil commitment while appealing the commitment order. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Indiana, filed an amicus brief arguing that the appellant鈥檚 case is not moot, despite her release from civil commitment, because the Indiana Constitution favors adjudicating appeals by people whose liberty has been curtailed, because it meets a traditional mootness exception for cases that at capable of repetition yet evading review, and because it also meets Indiana鈥檚 public interest exception to mootness.
Explore case
Indiana Supreme Court
Sep 2024
Civil Liberties
J.F. v. St. Vincent Hospital
This case in the Indiana Supreme Court concerns whether a case is moot when someone is released from a civil commitment while appealing the commitment order. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Indiana, filed an amicus brief arguing that the appellant鈥檚 case is not moot, despite her release from civil commitment, because the Indiana Constitution favors adjudicating appeals by people whose liberty has been curtailed, because it meets a traditional mootness exception for cases that at capable of repetition yet evading review, and because it also meets Indiana鈥檚 public interest exception to mootness.
Ohio Supreme Court
Sep 2024
Prisoners' Rights
State v. Morris
This case in the Ohio Supreme Court concerns the scope of the state constitutional right to counsel. The police in this case interrogated the defendant, Isaiah Morris, without mentioning his already-appointed counsel or asking him to waive his right to counsel. This procedural circumstance risks confusing criminal defendants and undermining their state constitutional rights. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Ohio and WilmerHale, filed an amicus brief arguing that merely providing a defendant notice of Miranda rights falls short of the bare minimum requirements for a valid waiver.
Explore case
Ohio Supreme Court
Sep 2024
Prisoners' Rights
State v. Morris
This case in the Ohio Supreme Court concerns the scope of the state constitutional right to counsel. The police in this case interrogated the defendant, Isaiah Morris, without mentioning his already-appointed counsel or asking him to waive his right to counsel. This procedural circumstance risks confusing criminal defendants and undermining their state constitutional rights. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Ohio and WilmerHale, filed an amicus brief arguing that merely providing a defendant notice of Miranda rights falls short of the bare minimum requirements for a valid waiver.
Texas
Sep 2024
Free Speech
Little v. Llano County
On September 10, 2024, the ACLU and the ACLU of Texas filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to protect the public鈥檚 right to access books and ideas at public libraries free from government censorship.
Explore case
Texas
Sep 2024
Free Speech
Little v. Llano County
On September 10, 2024, the ACLU and the ACLU of Texas filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to protect the public鈥檚 right to access books and ideas at public libraries free from government censorship.
Michigan
Sep 2024
Voting Rights
ACLU of Michigan v. Froman
Michigan requires boards of county canvassers to certify the results of an election within 14 days after the election based on the total number of votes reported from each location. The law doesn't allow them to withhold certification. Kalamazoo Board of County Canvassers member, Robert Froman, has made clear that he would decline to certify the November 2024 election under certain circumstances. This lawsuit asks the state's courts to make clear that Mr. Froman is duty bound to certify the election based on the number of votes reported.
Explore case
Michigan
Sep 2024
Voting Rights
ACLU of Michigan v. Froman
Michigan requires boards of county canvassers to certify the results of an election within 14 days after the election based on the total number of votes reported from each location. The law doesn't allow them to withhold certification. Kalamazoo Board of County Canvassers member, Robert Froman, has made clear that he would decline to certify the November 2024 election under certain circumstances. This lawsuit asks the state's courts to make clear that Mr. Froman is duty bound to certify the election based on the number of votes reported.
Mississippi
Sep 2024
Voting Rights
Republican National Committee v. Wetzel (Amicus)
In 2020, in a nearly unanimous bipartisan vote, Mississippi joined eighteen other states in accepting mail ballots postmarked by Election Day that arrived after Election Day (in Mississippi鈥檚 case, up to five business days). This lawsuit by partisan actors seeks to disenfranchise these voters whose ballot is mailed by Election Day but鈥攖hrough no fault of their own鈥攄oes not arrive until afterwards. In Mississippi, this harm will fall disproportionately on voters with disabilities, older voters, and other communities that rely upon absentee voting. Twisting the words and meaning of Congress, the RNC argues that three longstanding federal laws that set a uniform election day for federal races require that ballot may only be counted if they are received by election officials by Election Day. If accepted, this radical argument would not only disenfranchise thousands upon thousands of voters in Mississippi and eighteen other states, but also upend election administration in every state.
Explore case
Mississippi
Sep 2024
Voting Rights
Republican National Committee v. Wetzel (Amicus)
In 2020, in a nearly unanimous bipartisan vote, Mississippi joined eighteen other states in accepting mail ballots postmarked by Election Day that arrived after Election Day (in Mississippi鈥檚 case, up to five business days). This lawsuit by partisan actors seeks to disenfranchise these voters whose ballot is mailed by Election Day but鈥攖hrough no fault of their own鈥攄oes not arrive until afterwards. In Mississippi, this harm will fall disproportionately on voters with disabilities, older voters, and other communities that rely upon absentee voting. Twisting the words and meaning of Congress, the RNC argues that three longstanding federal laws that set a uniform election day for federal races require that ballot may only be counted if they are received by election officials by Election Day. If accepted, this radical argument would not only disenfranchise thousands upon thousands of voters in Mississippi and eighteen other states, but also upend election administration in every state.