Supreme Court Term 2025-2026

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the National Center for Youth Law (NCYL), and the New York Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit to demand transparency from the Trump administration regarding its treatment of pregnant unaccompanied immigrant youth in federal immigration custody. The lawsuit seeks to enforce the ACLU and NCYL’s February 2025 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for records and correspondence from the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), which oversees the care and custody of unaccompanied immigrant youth until they are placed with a sponsor, usually a family member in the United States. The release of this information is important to monitor whether the Trump administration is ensuring that these marginalized young people have access to the full range of pregnancy-related care while in government custody, as is required by law.

This case challenged Louisiana's attempt to suspend congressional primary elections after voting had already begin and tens of thousands of voters had already cast ballots. Plaintiffs argued that refusing to count those ballots violated the constitutional right to vote, and undermined the integrity of the electoral process.

The U.S. Department of Justice has launched an unprecedented and unlawful effort to invade the privacy of millions of American voters and threaten their right to vote. It has demanded that every state and the District of Columbia turn over their entire voter database, including Social Security Numbers, political party affiliation, and voter participation history. And at least a dozen states have complied, submitting their voters’ information for federal review. But the Department of Justice has no authority to dictate when a voter registration should be cancelled, and we are suing to stop the federal government’s overreach and ensure that voters’ information remains secure and free from unlawful interference.

This case asks whether an online business review constitutes speech about “a matter of public concern” that warrants protection under Minnesota’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act. We argue that it does because such reviews typically seek to inform the public and help consumers select goods and services. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the statutory and constitutional speech rights of Minnesotans, including consumers and other individuals who may face the threat of defamation suits for expressing their views in public.