Supreme Court Term 2025-2026
We’re breaking down the cases we've asked the court to consider this term.
Latest Case Updates
Ongoing
Updated May 19, 2026
Ongoing
Updated May 4, 2026
Ongoing
Updated April 30, 2026
Ongoing
Updated March 16, 2026
Featured
U.S. Supreme Court
May 2026
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.
Massachusetts
May 2026
Voting Rights
League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump
On March 31, 2026, President Trump issued a sweeping Executive Order titled "Ensuring Citizen Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections," seeking once again to seize control of election administration from Congress and the states. The Order directs federal agencies to compile lists of U.S. citizens and transmit them to states before every election, directs the U.S. Postal Service -- an independent agency established by Congress -- to create a list of "approved" mail voters, and instructs USPS to refuse to deliver ballots from voters not on that federally created list. If implemented, the Order would threaten the ability of millions of eligible citizens to cast their ballots, particularly military members, overseas citizens, the elderly, recently naturalized citizens, and voters with disabilities who rely on mail voting.
Court Case
May 2026
National Security
Human Rights
FOIA Case Seeking the Trump Administration’s Legal Justification for Deadly Boat Strikes
The Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”) authored a legal opinion that reportedly claims to justify the Trump administration’s 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 “armed conflict” 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
Apr 2026
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
Apr 2026
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.
Tennessee Supreme Court
Apr 2026
Capital Punishment
Tony Von Carruthers v. State of Tennessee
Tennessee plans to execute Tony Carruthers on May 21 even though they refuse to run a simple fingerprint comparison and DNA testing that could prove what Tony has been arguing for 30 years - that he is innocent of this crime and that Tennessee convicted and sentenced the wrong man to death.
U.S. Supreme Court
Feb 2026
Immigrants' Rights
Barbara v. Donald J. Trump
President Trump is attempting to undermine the promise of birthright citizenship to children born on U.S. soil. But the ACLU and partners are fighting to protect the rights of citizens that are plainly stated in the Constitution, federal statute, and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court for more than a century. We’re arguing against the Trump administration in the Supreme Court and are confident we will win.
Mississippi
Dec 2025
Voting Rights
White v. Mississippi State Board of Elections
District lines used to elect Mississippi’s Supreme Court have gone unchanged for more than 35 years. We’re suing because the current lines crack the Mississippi Delta and dilute the voting strength of Black Mississippians in state Supreme Court elections, in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
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—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.
All Cases
1,710 Court Cases
Court Case
May 2018
Reproductive Freedom
National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association v. Azar
The ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA) challenging the Trump administration’s attempt to fundamentally alter the Title X family planning program, which provides care to 4 million low-income people each year. The administration is attempting to undermine access to high-quality preventive health services for low-income people by diverting funds from experienced family planning providers instead prioritizing entities that attempt to convince individuals, regardless of age, that they should not have sex outside of marriage.
Explore case
Court Case
May 2018
Reproductive Freedom
National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association v. Azar
The ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA) challenging the Trump administration’s attempt to fundamentally alter the Title X family planning program, which provides care to 4 million low-income people each year. The administration is attempting to undermine access to high-quality preventive health services for low-income people by diverting funds from experienced family planning providers instead prioritizing entities that attempt to convince individuals, regardless of age, that they should not have sex outside of marriage.
Court Case
Apr 2018
Women's Rights
Lizzy Martinez v. Manatee County School District
On April 30, 2018, the ACLU Women’s Rights Project and ACLU of Florida sent a letter to the Manatee County School District and the principal of Braden River High School on behalf of Lizzy Martinez, a high school student disciplined for not wearing a bra under her shirt to school due to a painful sunburn.
Explore case
Court Case
Apr 2018
Women's Rights
Lizzy Martinez v. Manatee County School District
On April 30, 2018, the ACLU Women’s Rights Project and ACLU of Florida sent a letter to the Manatee County School District and the principal of Braden River High School on behalf of Lizzy Martinez, a high school student disciplined for not wearing a bra under her shirt to school due to a painful sunburn.
U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 2018
Criminal Law Reform
Smart Justice
Hester v. Gentry
In Alabama’s criminal justice system, wealth can be synonymous with freedom, and lack of wealth can mean incarceration. That’s wealth-based justice, and it’s unconstitutional. Hundreds of defendants, including Bradley Hester, Ray Charles Schultz, and Randall Parris, are routinely jailed pretrial due to their inability to afford a predetermined bail bond required for release. This system disregards the ramifications of unconstitutional pretrial detention for individuals and families, which include presumption of innocence, economic and emotional hardship, and potential loss of one’s job. We along with partners intervened in a federal class action lawsuit which seeks to end this unlawful detention scheme, and calls on Cullman County to instead implement fair, efficient, alternative conditions of release that are not based on how much money someone has.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 2018
Criminal Law Reform
Smart Justice
Hester v. Gentry
In Alabama’s criminal justice system, wealth can be synonymous with freedom, and lack of wealth can mean incarceration. That’s wealth-based justice, and it’s unconstitutional. Hundreds of defendants, including Bradley Hester, Ray Charles Schultz, and Randall Parris, are routinely jailed pretrial due to their inability to afford a predetermined bail bond required for release. This system disregards the ramifications of unconstitutional pretrial detention for individuals and families, which include presumption of innocence, economic and emotional hardship, and potential loss of one’s job. We along with partners intervened in a federal class action lawsuit which seeks to end this unlawful detention scheme, and calls on Cullman County to instead implement fair, efficient, alternative conditions of release that are not based on how much money someone has.
Indiana
Apr 2018
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky v. Commissioner, Indiana State Department of Health
In April 2018, the ACLU, the ACLU of Indiana and Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky (PPINK) filed a federal lawsuit challenging a state law passed in 2018 that requires health providers to submit a report to the state when a woman who has had an abortion seeks treatment for a wide range of health conditions. Physicians who fail to submit these reports would face criminal penalties and possible jail time.
Explore case
Indiana
Apr 2018
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky v. Commissioner, Indiana State Department of Health
In April 2018, the ACLU, the ACLU of Indiana and Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky (PPINK) filed a federal lawsuit challenging a state law passed in 2018 that requires health providers to submit a report to the state when a woman who has had an abortion seeks treatment for a wide range of health conditions. Physicians who fail to submit these reports would face criminal penalties and possible jail time.
Court Case
Apr 2018
Women's Rights
Jane Doe v. United States et al.
The American Civil Liberties Union and ten other organizations filed an amicus brief in support of Jane Doe, a former cadet at the U.S. Military Academy (West Point) who was subjected to sexual violence and harassment. The brief argues that the Second Circuit must recognize damages remedies for survivors of sexual violence at military academies and that such remedies are consistent with prevailing U.S. and international human rights law.
Explore case
Court Case
Apr 2018
Women's Rights
Jane Doe v. United States et al.
The American Civil Liberties Union and ten other organizations filed an amicus brief in support of Jane Doe, a former cadet at the U.S. Military Academy (West Point) who was subjected to sexual violence and harassment. The brief argues that the Second Circuit must recognize damages remedies for survivors of sexual violence at military academies and that such remedies are consistent with prevailing U.S. and international human rights law.