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 July 29, 2026
Ongoing
Updated July 29, 2026
Closed (Judgment)
Updated June 29, 2026
Closed (Judgment)
Updated June 18, 2026
Featured
Florida
Jul 2026
National Security
+2 Issues
CAIR-Foundation, Inc and CAIR Florida, Inc. v. DeSantis et al.
The ACLU, the ACLU of Florida, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and their partners represent CAIR and CAIR-Florida in two federal lawsuits challenging Governor DeSantis’s unconstitutional and baseless designation of the nonprofits as “terrorist.” The lawsuits allege violations of CAIR and CAIR-Florida’s rights under the First Amendment and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Massachusetts
Jul 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
Jul 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.
Arizona
Jul 2026
Prisoners' Rights
Jensen v. Thornell
UPDATE: On July 17, 2026, U.S. District Judge Roslyn O. Silver issued an order formally appointing a receiver to assume control and management of health care provided to more than 25,000 people incarcerated in Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry (ADCRR) prisons, in a long-running lawsuit against the state prison system brought by the Prison Law Office, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of Arizona, and Disability Rights Arizona. More details here.
New Hampshire
Jul 2026
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.
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.
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.
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.
All Cases
1,729 Court Cases
U.S. Supreme Court
Nov 2017
Criminal Law Reform
Byrd v. United States
Does the Fourth Amendment apply to the search of a rental car operated by an individual who has the renter’s permission to drive the car but is not himself listed as an authorized driver on the rental agreement?
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Nov 2017
Criminal Law Reform
Byrd v. United States
Does the Fourth Amendment apply to the search of a rental car operated by an individual who has the renter’s permission to drive the car but is not himself listed as an authorized driver on the rental agreement?
Maryland
Nov 2017
LGBTQ Rights
Smith v. Board of Education of Frederick County
On October 20, 2017 the ACLU, the ACLU of Maryland, and Free State Justice intervened on behalf of James van Kuilenburg, a transgender student, in the case Smith v. Board of Education of Frederick County to defend a Maryland school board’s policies that prevent discrimination, harassment, and stigmatization of transgender and gender nonconforming students in the school system.
Explore case
Maryland
Nov 2017
LGBTQ Rights
Smith v. Board of Education of Frederick County
On October 20, 2017 the ACLU, the ACLU of Maryland, and Free State Justice intervened on behalf of James van Kuilenburg, a transgender student, in the case Smith v. Board of Education of Frederick County to defend a Maryland school board’s policies that prevent discrimination, harassment, and stigmatization of transgender and gender nonconforming students in the school system.
Texas
Nov 2017
Immigrants' Rights
R.M.H. v. Lloyd
The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Texas filed a federal lawsuit seeking to free 10-year-old Rosa Maria Hernandez from government custody and reunite her with her family.
Explore case
Texas
Nov 2017
Immigrants' Rights
R.M.H. v. Lloyd
The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Texas filed a federal lawsuit seeking to free 10-year-old Rosa Maria Hernandez from government custody and reunite her with her family.
Michigan
Oct 2017
Women's Rights
Goocher and the National Collegiate Wrestling Association
The ACLU, the ACLU of Michigan, the National Women’s Law Center and the Women’s Sports Foundation sent a letter to the National Collegiate Wrestling Association (NCWA) urging it to change its discriminatory policy that prohibits women, like University of Michigan-Dearborn student and national wrestling champion Marina Goocher, from competing against male wrestlers when women wrestlers and teams are unavailable.
Explore case
Michigan
Oct 2017
Women's Rights
Goocher and the National Collegiate Wrestling Association
The ACLU, the ACLU of Michigan, the National Women’s Law Center and the Women’s Sports Foundation sent a letter to the National Collegiate Wrestling Association (NCWA) urging it to change its discriminatory policy that prohibits women, like University of Michigan-Dearborn student and national wrestling champion Marina Goocher, from competing against male wrestlers when women wrestlers and teams are unavailable.
Montana
Oct 2017
LGBTQ Rights
Hobaugh v. Montana
In response to efforts by the Montana Family Foundation to push an anti-transgender ballot measure that would bar transgender people from using public facilities like bathrooms or locker rooms that are consistent with their gender identity, the ACLU and the ACLU of Montana filed a petition challenging the legal sufficiency of the description of the proposed anti-trans ballot initiative (I-183) that would go to the voters. The petition argued that the ballot and fiscal impact statements inaccurately characterize the initiative – hiding both its discriminatory effect and its impact on local and state budgets. The Supreme Court of Montana agreed, ordering the Attorney General to revise both statements.
Explore case
Montana
Oct 2017
LGBTQ Rights
Hobaugh v. Montana
In response to efforts by the Montana Family Foundation to push an anti-transgender ballot measure that would bar transgender people from using public facilities like bathrooms or locker rooms that are consistent with their gender identity, the ACLU and the ACLU of Montana filed a petition challenging the legal sufficiency of the description of the proposed anti-trans ballot initiative (I-183) that would go to the voters. The petition argued that the ballot and fiscal impact statements inaccurately characterize the initiative – hiding both its discriminatory effect and its impact on local and state budgets. The Supreme Court of Montana agreed, ordering the Attorney General to revise both statements.