Supreme Court Term 2025-2026
We’re breaking down the cases we've asked the court to consider this term.
Latest Case Updates
Updated September 10, 2026
Ongoing
Updated September 8, 2026
Ongoing
Updated August 31, 2026
Ongoing
Updated August 31, 2026
Featured
Florida
Sep 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
Sep 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
Sep 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.
Oregon Supreme Court
Aug 2026
LGBTQ Rights
Prisoners' Rights
Zyst v. Miller
Following the Oregon Department of Corrections’ unconstitutional treatment of a transgender prisoner, a habeas court ordered her removal from segregated housing, an individualized gender-affirming care assessment, a psychiatric evaluation, and identification of an appropriate cellmate. However, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the psychiatric-evaluation and cellmate orders, finding them “too attenuated” to qualify as habeas relief. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Oregon, joined an amicus brief by the law firm Sugerman Dahab arguing that habeas courts have broad discretion to remedy violations and resulting harms. The brief explains that the Court of Appeals’ “close connection” test unduly constricts habeas relief, and which should be construed to encompass not only the need to halt ongoing constitutional violations, but also the need to mitigate various harms that may arise from those violations.
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.
All Cases
1,750 Court Cases
Alabama
May 2026
Voting Rights
Alabama State Conference of the NAACP v. Allen
Alabama State Conference of the NAACP v. Allen challenges Alabama’s most recently drawn state legislative maps as dilutive of Black voting power in the state in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Explore case
Alabama
May 2026
Voting Rights
Alabama State Conference of the NAACP v. Allen
Alabama State Conference of the NAACP v. Allen challenges Alabama’s most recently drawn state legislative maps as dilutive of Black voting power in the state in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Tennessee
May 2026
Free Speech
Demster v. Blanche
Four Memphis residents represented by the ACLU, ACLU of Tennessee, and law firms Selendy Gay and BraunHagey & Borden are challenging the Memphis Safe Task Force's policy and pattern of retaliation, intimidation, and harassment against observers who record Task Forceent operations, an activity protected by the First Amendment. The lawsuit also challenges the Task Force’s invocation of a Tennessee law criminalizing approaching officers within 25 feet after one warning against the plaintiffs, which burdens their ability to record Task Force activity.
Explore case
Tennessee
May 2026
Free Speech
Demster v. Blanche
Four Memphis residents represented by the ACLU, ACLU of Tennessee, and law firms Selendy Gay and BraunHagey & Borden are challenging the Memphis Safe Task Force's policy and pattern of retaliation, intimidation, and harassment against observers who record Task Forceent operations, an activity protected by the First Amendment. The lawsuit also challenges the Task Force’s invocation of a Tennessee law criminalizing approaching officers within 25 feet after one warning against the plaintiffs, which burdens their ability to record Task Force activity.
Missouri
May 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.
Explore case
Missouri
May 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.
South Carolina
May 2026
Voting Rights
NAACP South Carolina State Conference v. Wilson
All voters with disabilities have the right to receive assistance voting from a person of their choice. South Carolina prohibits some voters with disabilities from receiving assistance and limits who voters can rely on for assistance. Voters with disabilities and the NAACP South Carolina State Conference sued to challenge those laws under Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act and protect disabled voters’ right to assistance.
Explore case
South Carolina
May 2026
Voting Rights
NAACP South Carolina State Conference v. Wilson
All voters with disabilities have the right to receive assistance voting from a person of their choice. South Carolina prohibits some voters with disabilities from receiving assistance and limits who voters can rely on for assistance. Voters with disabilities and the NAACP South Carolina State Conference sued to challenge those laws under Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act and protect disabled voters’ right to assistance.
Texas Supreme Court
May 2026
Civil Liberties
Privacy & Technology
Nguyen v. State
This case concerns the constitutionality of a highly intrusive law enforcement practice: the use of geofence warrants. Geofence warrants compel tech companies like Google to provide to law enforcement location data from every cell phone likely to have been within a certain area during a given time window. Then, law enforcement officers decide for themselves which users to focus on, and demand additional location information—and eventually identifying information—for the users they select. Geofence warrants raise grave constitutional concerns, including that (1) they authorize dragnet searches that sweep up the private data of many people without probable cause to believe that all or any of them were involved in any crime, and (2) they allow law enforcement officers to decide which users to focus on for additional data collection without judicial oversight. This case therefore has significant implications for Texans’ ability to secure their digital privacy and property against unjustified government intrusion.
Explore case
Texas Supreme Court
May 2026
Civil Liberties
Privacy & Technology
Nguyen v. State
This case concerns the constitutionality of a highly intrusive law enforcement practice: the use of geofence warrants. Geofence warrants compel tech companies like Google to provide to law enforcement location data from every cell phone likely to have been within a certain area during a given time window. Then, law enforcement officers decide for themselves which users to focus on, and demand additional location information—and eventually identifying information—for the users they select. Geofence warrants raise grave constitutional concerns, including that (1) they authorize dragnet searches that sweep up the private data of many people without probable cause to believe that all or any of them were involved in any crime, and (2) they allow law enforcement officers to decide which users to focus on for additional data collection without judicial oversight. This case therefore has significant implications for Texans’ ability to secure their digital privacy and property against unjustified government intrusion.