Supreme Court Term 2024-2025
We’re breaking down the cases we've asked the court to consider this term.
Latest Case Updates
Ongoing Updated June 13, 2025
Closed (Judgment) Updated June 6, 2025
Ongoing Updated May 8, 2025
Ongoing Updated March 24, 2025
Featured
Georgia Supreme Court
Jun 2025

Voting Rights
Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc. v. Georgia
The ACLU and partner organizations intervened in this case to represent the rights of voters and voting-rights organizations in a case challenging a number of rules passed by the Georgia State Election Board. We challenged the rule requiring that the number of votes cast be hand counted at the polling place prior to the tabulation of votes. In a critical victory for Georgia voters, in June 2025, the Georgia Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s decision permanently blocking the rule requiring hand counting of ballots at polling places before tabulation — a process widely criticized for risking delays, ballot spoliation, and voter disenfranchisement.
U.S. Supreme Court
May 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.
Apr 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.
Maryland
Apr 2025

Religious Liberty
LGBTQ Rights
Mahmoud v. Taylor
On April 9, 2025, the ACLU and ACLU of Maryland filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) in its efforts to ensure that its English Language Arts curriculum is LGBTQ-inclusive.
U.S. Supreme Court
Mar 2025

Voting Rights
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.
New Hampshire
Mar 2025

Voting Rights
Coalition for Open Democracy v. Scanlan
This lawsuit challenges HB 1569, a new law that will make New Hampshire the only state to require every person to produce documentary proof of citizenship when they register to vote for both state and federal elections. It also challenges HB 1569’s elimination a preexisting protection for voters—namely, an affidavit option that allowed voters who faced surprise challenges to their eligibility at the polls to swear to their qualifications and cast a ballot. Accordingly, HB 1569 violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution by placing substantial burdens on New Hampshirites at all stages of the voting process, and will arbitrarily disenfranchise hundreds, if not thousands of qualified voters.
South Carolina Supreme Court
Jan 2025

Voting Rights
League of Women Voters of South Carolina v. Alexander
This case involves a state constitutional challenge to South Carolina’s 2022 congressional redistricting plan, which legislators admit was drawn to entrench a 6-1 Republican majority in the state’s federal delegation. Plaintiff the League of Women Voters of South Carolina has asked the state’s Supreme Court to conclude that the congressional map is an unlawful partisan gerrymander that violates the state constitution.
Texas
Oct 2024

Voting Rights
OCA-Greater Houston v. Paxton
Texas has growing Hispanic and Black populations that helped propel record voter turnout in the November 2020 election. The Texas Legislature responded to this increased civic participation with an omnibus election bill titled Senate Bill 1—SB 1 for short—that targeted election practices that made voting more accessible to traditionally marginalized voters like voters of color, voters with disabilities, and voters with limited English proficiency. Since 2021, SB 1 has resulted in tens of thousands of lawful votes being rejected, and it remains a threat to democracy in Texas.
Ohio
Sep 2024

Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region et al., v. Ohio Department of Health, et al.
The American Civil Liberties Union, 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’s 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.
Stay informed about our latest work in the courts.
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU's privacy statement.
All Cases
1,584 Court Cases

South Carolina
Jun 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Misanin v. Wilson
Transgender South Carolinians and their families challenged a 2024 state law banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth and prohibiting any state funds from supporting access to gender-affirming medical care. South Carolina’s ban led to medical providers ending treatment for transgender patients regardless of age.
Explore case
South Carolina
Jun 2025

LGBTQ Rights
Misanin v. Wilson
Transgender South Carolinians and their families challenged a 2024 state law banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth and prohibiting any state funds from supporting access to gender-affirming medical care. South Carolina’s ban led to medical providers ending treatment for transgender patients regardless of age.

Florida
Jun 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Keohane v. Dixon
On September 30, 2024, the Florida Department of Corrections rescinded its policy regarding treatment of gender dysphoria, which allowed for hormone therapy when deemed medically necessary, as well as access to clothing and grooming standards that accord with one’s gender identity. Under this new policy, grooming and clothing accommodations have been stripped away, and hormone therapy is not permitted unless an exception is deemed constitutionally required. The ACLU brought a class action challenging the policy.
Explore case
Florida
Jun 2025

LGBTQ Rights
Keohane v. Dixon
On September 30, 2024, the Florida Department of Corrections rescinded its policy regarding treatment of gender dysphoria, which allowed for hormone therapy when deemed medically necessary, as well as access to clothing and grooming standards that accord with one’s gender identity. Under this new policy, grooming and clothing accommodations have been stripped away, and hormone therapy is not permitted unless an exception is deemed constitutionally required. The ACLU brought a class action challenging the policy.

Oklahoma
Jun 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Poe v. Drummond
Families, transgender adolescents, and their medical providers are challenging a new law, signed by Governor Kevin Stitt in May 2023, that imposes criminal penalties on healthcare providers who provide age-appropriate medical care for transgender adolescents. Such restrictions are opposed by leading medical experts and organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. According to the Williams Institute of UCLA, there are an estimated 2,600 transgender youth ages 13-17 in Oklahoma.
Explore case
Oklahoma
Jun 2025

LGBTQ Rights
Poe v. Drummond
Families, transgender adolescents, and their medical providers are challenging a new law, signed by Governor Kevin Stitt in May 2023, that imposes criminal penalties on healthcare providers who provide age-appropriate medical care for transgender adolescents. Such restrictions are opposed by leading medical experts and organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. According to the Williams Institute of UCLA, there are an estimated 2,600 transgender youth ages 13-17 in Oklahoma.

Idaho
Jun 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Poe v. Labrador
A 2023 Idaho law criminalizing gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth is being challenged in federal court by two transgender adolescents and their families. HB 71, signed into law by Idaho Governor Brad Little in May 2023, prohibits gender-affirming medical care that is widely accepted to treat gender dysphoria, helping alleviate the distress of gender dysphoria and significantly improving patients’ mental health and well-being. Such treatment is supported by leading medical experts and all major U.S. medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Explore case
Idaho
Jun 2025

LGBTQ Rights
Poe v. Labrador
A 2023 Idaho law criminalizing gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth is being challenged in federal court by two transgender adolescents and their families. HB 71, signed into law by Idaho Governor Brad Little in May 2023, prohibits gender-affirming medical care that is widely accepted to treat gender dysphoria, helping alleviate the distress of gender dysphoria and significantly improving patients’ mental health and well-being. Such treatment is supported by leading medical experts and all major U.S. medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Montana
Jun 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Kalarchik v. State of Montana
After a years-long effort by the state of Montana to deny transgender people the right to update their identity documents, two transgender women filed a class-action lawsuit against the state and several of its agencies and officials. 26 states and the District of Columbia issue new birth certificate and do not require sex reassignment surgery nor court order in order to change gender marker, while Montana is one of five states that prohibits any changes.
Explore case
Montana
Jun 2025

LGBTQ Rights
Kalarchik v. State of Montana
After a years-long effort by the state of Montana to deny transgender people the right to update their identity documents, two transgender women filed a class-action lawsuit against the state and several of its agencies and officials. 26 states and the District of Columbia issue new birth certificate and do not require sex reassignment surgery nor court order in order to change gender marker, while Montana is one of five states that prohibits any changes.