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 March 16, 2026
Ongoing
Updated March 12, 2026
Ongoing
Updated February 25, 2026
Ongoing
Updated February 18, 2026
Featured
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.
Missouri
Feb 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.
Missouri
Feb 2026
Voting Rights
Missouri v. U.S. Department of Commerce
A coalition of civil rights and immigrant-rights organizations has moved to intervene as defendants in a lawsuit that threatens to dismantle the Constitution’s long-standing requirement that the decennial census count all people living in the United States. Missouri asks the court to exclude undocumented immigrants and people living in the country on temporary visas from the census count used to determine congressional representation—an unprecedented move that would upend more than two centuries of constitutional practice.
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.
Court Case
Dec 2025
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.
U.S. Supreme Court
Nov 2025
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.
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.
U.S. Supreme Court
Oct 2025
Voting Rights
State Board of Election Commissioners v. Mississippi State Conference of the NAACP
Mississippi has a growing Black population, which is already the largest Black population percentage of any state in the country. Yet. Black Mississippians continue to be significantly under-represented in the state legislature, as Mississippi’s latest districting maps fail to reflect the reality of the state’s changing demographics. During the 2022 redistricting process, the Mississippi legislature refused to create any new districts where Black voters have a chance to elect their preferred representative. The current district lines therefore dilute the voting power of Black Mississippians and continue to deprive them of political representation that is responsive to their needs and concerns, including severe disparities in education and healthcare.
U.S. Supreme Court
Oct 2025
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.
All Cases
1,686 Court Cases
Court Case
Jun 2024
Privacy & Technology
United States v. Hunt
This case concerns whether a warrant is required to search the information stored on a cell phone when the device itself may be properly deemed “abandoned.”
Explore case
Court Case
Jun 2024
Privacy & Technology
United States v. Hunt
This case concerns whether a warrant is required to search the information stored on a cell phone when the device itself may be properly deemed “abandoned.”
Tennessee
Jun 2024
LGBTQ Rights
L.E. v Lee
Luc Esquivel is a 15-year-old sophomore at Farragut High School in Knoxville, TN who has been looking forward to trying out for the boys’ golf team. That aspiration was derailed when the Tennessee legislature passed and Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee signed into law SB 228, which bans transgender middle and high school students from participating on interscholastic sports teams that match their gender. Luc and his family have sued the state of Tennessee.
Explore case
Tennessee
Jun 2024
LGBTQ Rights
L.E. v Lee
Luc Esquivel is a 15-year-old sophomore at Farragut High School in Knoxville, TN who has been looking forward to trying out for the boys’ golf team. That aspiration was derailed when the Tennessee legislature passed and Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee signed into law SB 228, which bans transgender middle and high school students from participating on interscholastic sports teams that match their gender. Luc and his family have sued the state of Tennessee.
Montana
May 2024
National Security
Alario v. Knudsen (Amicus)
In April 2023, Montana’s state legislature passed SB 419, an Act Banning TikTok in Montana. This law imposes a sweeping ban on free expression—one that would prevent everyday Montanans from using TikTok to communicate with immense audiences, access information from around the world, and express themselves. This ban flouts the First Amendment and tramples Montanans’ constitutional right to freedom of speech—that’s why the ACLU, ACLU of Montana, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and a coalition of civil society organizations filed amicus briefs in the district court and the Ninth Circuit urging the courts to block the law from going into effect. Through these briefs, we continue to fight to ensure that no legislature can ban Americans from using an immensely popular platform for online speech based on vague invocations of “national security” or anti-China rhetoric.
Explore case
Montana
May 2024
National Security
Alario v. Knudsen (Amicus)
In April 2023, Montana’s state legislature passed SB 419, an Act Banning TikTok in Montana. This law imposes a sweeping ban on free expression—one that would prevent everyday Montanans from using TikTok to communicate with immense audiences, access information from around the world, and express themselves. This ban flouts the First Amendment and tramples Montanans’ constitutional right to freedom of speech—that’s why the ACLU, ACLU of Montana, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and a coalition of civil society organizations filed amicus briefs in the district court and the Ninth Circuit urging the courts to block the law from going into effect. Through these briefs, we continue to fight to ensure that no legislature can ban Americans from using an immensely popular platform for online speech based on vague invocations of “national security” or anti-China rhetoric.
Ohio
May 2024
Reproductive Freedom
Women's Medical Group Professional Corp. v. Vanderhoff
Ohio clinics must maintain an ambulatory surgical facility license to provide procedural abortion. Ohio imposes medically unnecessary and burdensome licensing requirements that make it difficult, if not impossible, for abortion clinics to maintain their licenses.
Explore case
Ohio
May 2024
Reproductive Freedom
Women's Medical Group Professional Corp. v. Vanderhoff
Ohio clinics must maintain an ambulatory surgical facility license to provide procedural abortion. Ohio imposes medically unnecessary and burdensome licensing requirements that make it difficult, if not impossible, for abortion clinics to maintain their licenses.
Montana Supreme Court
May 2024
Juvenile Justice
+2 Issues
Held v. Montana
This case pending before the Montana Supreme Court asks, among other things, whether the claims of sixteen youth plaintiffs challenging Montana energy policy present a political question under the Montana Constitution. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Montana, filed an amicus brief arguing that the claims do not present a political question and, moreover, that state courts should not wholesale adopt the federal political questions doctrine.
Explore case
Montana Supreme Court
May 2024
Juvenile Justice
+2 Issues
Held v. Montana
This case pending before the Montana Supreme Court asks, among other things, whether the claims of sixteen youth plaintiffs challenging Montana energy policy present a political question under the Montana Constitution. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Montana, filed an amicus brief arguing that the claims do not present a political question and, moreover, that state courts should not wholesale adopt the federal political questions doctrine.