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
Georgia Supreme Court
Feb 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Tatum v. State
This case at the Georgia Supreme Court involves the 鈥渋ndependent source鈥 doctrine, an exception to the exclusionary rule providing that evidence that is acquired through means genuinely independent of a prior unlawful search or seizure may be accepted by the court. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Georgia, filed an amicus brief arguing that the independent source doctrine does not apply in this case because the police relied on information acquired from a prior, illegal search when they applied for a warrant to search the defendant鈥檚 cell phone. The Court鈥檚 opinion vacated Tatum鈥檚 conviction and remanded to allow the trial court to determine whether the state鈥檚 decision to seek the search warrant was 鈥減rompted鈥 by the prior unlawful search.
Explore case
Georgia Supreme Court
Feb 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Tatum v. State
This case at the Georgia Supreme Court involves the 鈥渋ndependent source鈥 doctrine, an exception to the exclusionary rule providing that evidence that is acquired through means genuinely independent of a prior unlawful search or seizure may be accepted by the court. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Georgia, filed an amicus brief arguing that the independent source doctrine does not apply in this case because the police relied on information acquired from a prior, illegal search when they applied for a warrant to search the defendant鈥檚 cell phone. The Court鈥檚 opinion vacated Tatum鈥檚 conviction and remanded to allow the trial court to determine whether the state鈥檚 decision to seek the search warrant was 鈥減rompted鈥 by the prior unlawful search.
Montana
Feb 2024
Free Speech
LGBTQ Rights
The Imperial Sovereign Court of the State of Montana v. Knudsen
On February 15, 2024, the ACLU and ACLU of Montana filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to leave in place an injunction against enforcement of a Montana law that infringes minors鈥 First Amendment rights by restricting their ability to attend drag performances.
Explore case
Montana
Feb 2024
Free Speech
LGBTQ Rights
The Imperial Sovereign Court of the State of Montana v. Knudsen
On February 15, 2024, the ACLU and ACLU of Montana filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to leave in place an injunction against enforcement of a Montana law that infringes minors鈥 First Amendment rights by restricting their ability to attend drag performances.
California
Feb 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
Netchoice, LLC v. Bonta
This amicus brief highlights the constitutional defects of a California law that purports to protect consumer privacy but is actually an impermissible, content-based regulation of online speech. The brief urges that this law should be struck down while emphasizing that the court should rule narrowly and leave paths open for other consumer privacy laws to withstand First Amendment challenge.
Explore case
California
Feb 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
Netchoice, LLC v. Bonta
This amicus brief highlights the constitutional defects of a California law that purports to protect consumer privacy but is actually an impermissible, content-based regulation of online speech. The brief urges that this law should be struck down while emphasizing that the court should rule narrowly and leave paths open for other consumer privacy laws to withstand First Amendment challenge.
Oregon
Feb 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Disability Rights
Disability Rights Oregon v. Washington County, Oregon
Explore case
Oregon
Feb 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Disability Rights
Disability Rights Oregon v. Washington County, Oregon
New York
Jan 2024
Racial Justice
Mieles v. Ronald McDonald House
Mieles v. Ronald McDonald House of the Greater Hudson Valley et al. challenges a discriminatory housing policy that bans individuals with a wide range of convictions from critical housing without consideration of the nature, severity, or recency of the conviction or incident, or an individualized assessment. Such policies unjustly and disproportionately exclude Latine and Black people from housing, in violation of the Federal Housing Act and New York State Human Rights law.
Explore case
New York
Jan 2024
Racial Justice
Mieles v. Ronald McDonald House
Mieles v. Ronald McDonald House of the Greater Hudson Valley et al. challenges a discriminatory housing policy that bans individuals with a wide range of convictions from critical housing without consideration of the nature, severity, or recency of the conviction or incident, or an individualized assessment. Such policies unjustly and disproportionately exclude Latine and Black people from housing, in violation of the Federal Housing Act and New York State Human Rights law.