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 29, 2026
Ongoing
Updated June 26, 2026
Ongoing
Updated June 25, 2026
Closed (Judgment)
Updated June 18, 2026
Featured
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.
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.
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.
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
1,726 Court Cases
North Carolina
Nov 2025
Voting Rights
North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. Berger
In 2023, North Carolina legislators enacted a congressional map that diluted the voice and voting power of Black North Carolinians. Plaintiffs sued to enjoin that map. After a trial on the merits, North Carolina engaged in unprecedented mid-decade redistricting to target Black voters in Congressional District 1.
Explore case
North Carolina
Nov 2025
Voting Rights
North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. Berger
In 2023, North Carolina legislators enacted a congressional map that diluted the voice and voting power of Black North Carolinians. Plaintiffs sued to enjoin that map. After a trial on the merits, North Carolina engaged in unprecedented mid-decade redistricting to target Black voters in Congressional District 1.
Oregon
Nov 2025
Voting Rights
United States v. Oregon (Amicus)
Representing the ACLU of Oregon, the ACLU Voting Rights Project and the ACLU of Oregon filed an amicus brief in a federal lawsuit over the federal government’s demand that Oregon turn over its entire voter registration rolls, including with voters’ sensitive personal data such as drivers’ license numbers and partial social security numbers.
Explore case
Oregon
Nov 2025
Voting Rights
United States v. Oregon (Amicus)
Representing the ACLU of Oregon, the ACLU Voting Rights Project and the ACLU of Oregon filed an amicus brief in a federal lawsuit over the federal government’s demand that Oregon turn over its entire voter registration rolls, including with voters’ sensitive personal data such as drivers’ license numbers and partial social security numbers.
U.S. Supreme Court
Nov 2025
Free Speech
Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment
In a brief spearheaded by leading copyright scholars Rebecca Tushnet (Harvard Law), Mark Lemley (Stanford Law), and Chris Springman (NYU Law), the ACLU, the ACLU of Virginia, and the Center for Democracy and Technology filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the Supreme Court in Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment. In this significant copyright case, the Supreme Court will review a 4th Circuit ruling holding that an internet service provider could be liable for vast copyright damages because it took insufficient steps to disconnect IP addresses accused of downloading copyrighted material. The case is at the Supreme Court on the merits docket, with oral arguments scheduled for Monday, December 1, 2025.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Nov 2025
Free Speech
Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment
In a brief spearheaded by leading copyright scholars Rebecca Tushnet (Harvard Law), Mark Lemley (Stanford Law), and Chris Springman (NYU Law), the ACLU, the ACLU of Virginia, and the Center for Democracy and Technology filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the Supreme Court in Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment. In this significant copyright case, the Supreme Court will review a 4th Circuit ruling holding that an internet service provider could be liable for vast copyright damages because it took insufficient steps to disconnect IP addresses accused of downloading copyrighted material. The case is at the Supreme Court on the merits docket, with oral arguments scheduled for Monday, December 1, 2025.
Massachusetts Supreme Court
Nov 2025
Criminal Law Reform
Committee for Public Counsel Services v. Middlesex and Suffolk District Courts
For more than two decades, criminal defendants in Massachusetts have experienced a recurring counsel crisis, with defendants periodically going unrepresented due to low attorney compensation rates. Despite many opportunities, the Legislature has failed to raise rates high enough to remedy the constitutional violation. At present, the compensation rate for district court cases is $75 per hour. Consequently, in a case brought by the Committee for Public Counsel Services—the Massachusetts public defender agency—the ACLU of Massachusetts and the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative filed an amicus brief urging the Court to hold that the statute setting attorney compensation rates is unconstitutional. This case has important implications for the right to counsel and access to justice in Massachusetts.
Explore case
Massachusetts Supreme Court
Nov 2025
Criminal Law Reform
Committee for Public Counsel Services v. Middlesex and Suffolk District Courts
For more than two decades, criminal defendants in Massachusetts have experienced a recurring counsel crisis, with defendants periodically going unrepresented due to low attorney compensation rates. Despite many opportunities, the Legislature has failed to raise rates high enough to remedy the constitutional violation. At present, the compensation rate for district court cases is $75 per hour. Consequently, in a case brought by the Committee for Public Counsel Services—the Massachusetts public defender agency—the ACLU of Massachusetts and the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative filed an amicus brief urging the Court to hold that the statute setting attorney compensation rates is unconstitutional. This case has important implications for the right to counsel and access to justice in Massachusetts.
Maryland
Nov 2025
Reproductive Freedom
ACLU v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit to compel the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to disclose records related to the agency’s review of its regulations on mifepristone, a medication used in most U.S. abortions. The lawsuit seeks to enforce the ACLU’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, filed in August 2025, which seeks information about the scope of the review along with any communications between the FDA and anti-abortion organizations, state and federal officials, and politicians requesting greater restrictions on medication abortion.
Explore case
Maryland
Nov 2025
Reproductive Freedom
ACLU v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit to compel the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to disclose records related to the agency’s review of its regulations on mifepristone, a medication used in most U.S. abortions. The lawsuit seeks to enforce the ACLU’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, filed in August 2025, which seeks information about the scope of the review along with any communications between the FDA and anti-abortion organizations, state and federal officials, and politicians requesting greater restrictions on medication abortion.