Supreme Court Term 2025-2026
We’re breaking down the cases we've asked the court to consider this term.
Latest Case Updates
Closed (Judgment)
Updated June 18, 2026
Ongoing
Updated May 26, 2026
Ongoing
Updated May 4, 2026
Ongoing
Updated April 30, 2026
Featured
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.
New Hampshire
May 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.
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.
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.
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
1,714 Court Cases
New York
May 2026
Reproductive Freedom
Immigrants' Rights
ACLU et al. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services et al.
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.
Explore case
New York
May 2026
Reproductive Freedom
Immigrants' Rights
ACLU et al. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services et al.
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.
Maine
May 2026
National Security
Free Speech
Smith v. Trump
On April 11, 2025, the ACLU and ACLU of Maine filed a lawsuit on behalf of two human rights advocates who, because of an executive order signed by President Trump, have been forced to stop humanitarian work with the International Criminal Court.
Explore case
Maine
May 2026
National Security
Free Speech
Smith v. Trump
On April 11, 2025, the ACLU and ACLU of Maine filed a lawsuit on behalf of two human rights advocates who, because of an executive order signed by President Trump, have been forced to stop humanitarian work with the International Criminal Court.
Louisiana
May 2026
Voting Rights
Bernard v. Landry
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.
Explore case
Louisiana
May 2026
Voting Rights
Bernard v. Landry
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.
Washington, D.C.
May 2026
Voting Rights
Common Cause v. U.S. Department of Justice
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.
Explore case
Washington, D.C.
May 2026
Voting Rights
Common Cause v. U.S. Department of Justice
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.
Minnesota Supreme Court
May 2026
Free Speech
Paragon Restorations, LLC v. Robinet Productions, LLC
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.
Explore case
Minnesota Supreme Court
May 2026
Free Speech
Paragon Restorations, LLC v. Robinet Productions, LLC
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.