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
1,731 Court Cases
Rhode Island
Mar 2025
Free Speech
Rhode Island Latino Arts v. National Endowment for the Arts
On March 6, 2025, the ACLU; the ACLU of Rhode Island; Lynette Labinger, cooperating attorney for the ACLU of Rhode Island; and David Cole filed a federal lawsuit against the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), challenging a new requirement that all grant applicants certify that “federal funds shall not be used to promote gender ideology,” pursuant to President Trump’s Executive Order 14168, and a related prohibition on funding any projects that appear to “promote” such messages.
Explore case
Rhode Island
Mar 2025
Free Speech
Rhode Island Latino Arts v. National Endowment for the Arts
On March 6, 2025, the ACLU; the ACLU of Rhode Island; Lynette Labinger, cooperating attorney for the ACLU of Rhode Island; and David Cole filed a federal lawsuit against the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), challenging a new requirement that all grant applicants certify that “federal funds shall not be used to promote gender ideology,” pursuant to President Trump’s Executive Order 14168, and a related prohibition on funding any projects that appear to “promote” such messages.
New Hampshire
Mar 2025
Racial Justice
National Education Association et al. v. US Department of Education et al
The National Education Association, the National Education Association-New Hampshire, and the Center for Black Educator Development filed a challenge in federal court against the U.S. Department of Education’s Feb. 14, 2025 “Dear Colleague Letter,” which announced that ED will treat diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts as unlawful and threatens to move swiftly to cut schools’ federal funding. ED’s actions violate due process and the First Amendment, as well as basic requirements for agency action.
Explore case
New Hampshire
Mar 2025
Racial Justice
National Education Association et al. v. US Department of Education et al
The National Education Association, the National Education Association-New Hampshire, and the Center for Black Educator Development filed a challenge in federal court against the U.S. Department of Education’s Feb. 14, 2025 “Dear Colleague Letter,” which announced that ED will treat diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts as unlawful and threatens to move swiftly to cut schools’ federal funding. ED’s actions violate due process and the First Amendment, as well as basic requirements for agency action.
Court Case
Mar 2025
Immigrants' Rights
Espinoza Escalona v. Noem
Immigrants’ rights advocates sued the Trump administration to halt the transfer of immigrants from the United States to Guantánamo Bay in Cuba under President Trump’s recent order.
Explore case
Court Case
Mar 2025
Immigrants' Rights
Espinoza Escalona v. Noem
Immigrants’ rights advocates sued the Trump administration to halt the transfer of immigrants from the United States to Guantánamo Bay in Cuba under President Trump’s recent order.
Georgia
Feb 2025
Criminal Law Reform
State of Georgia v. Wierson
This case asks whether Georgia’s insanity defense statutes can be construed to contain an exception for cases where defendants allegedly triggered their own insanity by discontinuing their medication weeks before the alleged crimes. The State argues for such an exception, even though the text of the insanity defense statutes expressly pins the availability of the defenses to the defendant’s mental condition “at the time of” the alleged crimes. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Georgia, filed an amicus brief arguing that even if the State’s interpretation of the statutory text were reasonable, its argument should still be rejected because it contradicts the rule of lenity. The rule of lenity is a well-established canon of statutory construction requiring that, if a criminal statute can reasonably be interpreted in different ways, courts must adopt the interpretation most favorable to the accused.
Explore case
Georgia
Feb 2025
Criminal Law Reform
State of Georgia v. Wierson
This case asks whether Georgia’s insanity defense statutes can be construed to contain an exception for cases where defendants allegedly triggered their own insanity by discontinuing their medication weeks before the alleged crimes. The State argues for such an exception, even though the text of the insanity defense statutes expressly pins the availability of the defenses to the defendant’s mental condition “at the time of” the alleged crimes. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Georgia, filed an amicus brief arguing that even if the State’s interpretation of the statutory text were reasonable, its argument should still be rejected because it contradicts the rule of lenity. The rule of lenity is a well-established canon of statutory construction requiring that, if a criminal statute can reasonably be interpreted in different ways, courts must adopt the interpretation most favorable to the accused.
New York Supreme Court
Feb 2025
Smart Justice
Free Speech
NYCLU v. New York State Office of Court Administration
This case in the New York Court of Appeals (the highest New York state court) asks whether a government agency can conceal guidance that it issues to judges on how to apply the law in adjudicating cases. A few years ago, news reporting brought to light that a New York administrative agency has a practice of issuing such guidance to state court judges without disclosing it to the public. Because the agency's guidance informs how judges decide cases—with important implications for people’s rights—the New York Civil Liberties Union requested access to it under New York’s Freedom of Information Law. The agency denied the request, so the NYCLU sued. The NYCLU and the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative are arguing that the public is entitled to the guidance and that there is a strong public interest in the transparent administration of justice.
Explore case
New York Supreme Court
Feb 2025
Smart Justice
Free Speech
NYCLU v. New York State Office of Court Administration
This case in the New York Court of Appeals (the highest New York state court) asks whether a government agency can conceal guidance that it issues to judges on how to apply the law in adjudicating cases. A few years ago, news reporting brought to light that a New York administrative agency has a practice of issuing such guidance to state court judges without disclosing it to the public. Because the agency's guidance informs how judges decide cases—with important implications for people’s rights—the New York Civil Liberties Union requested access to it under New York’s Freedom of Information Law. The agency denied the request, so the NYCLU sued. The NYCLU and the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative are arguing that the public is entitled to the guidance and that there is a strong public interest in the transparent administration of justice.