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
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.
Massachusetts
Apr 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
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.
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.
All Cases
1,697 Court Cases
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2023
Criminal Law Reform
Pulsifer v. United States
This case involves the interpretation of a federal law that allows defendants to avoid mandatory minimum sentences for certain nonviolent drug crimes, allowing judges to impose sentences tailored to their individual circumstances.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2023
Criminal Law Reform
Pulsifer v. United States
This case involves the interpretation of a federal law that allows defendants to avoid mandatory minimum sentences for certain nonviolent drug crimes, allowing judges to impose sentences tailored to their individual circumstances.
Utah
Jun 2023
Free Speech
LGBTQ Rights
Southern Utah Drag Stars, LLC v. City of St. George
This case is about whether a city government’s selective and discriminatory refusal to permit a family-friendly drag event in a public park violated the event organizers’ First Amendment right to free speech and the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection, and related provisions contained in the Utah Constitution.
Explore case
Utah
Jun 2023
Free Speech
LGBTQ Rights
Southern Utah Drag Stars, LLC v. City of St. George
This case is about whether a city government’s selective and discriminatory refusal to permit a family-friendly drag event in a public park violated the event organizers’ First Amendment right to free speech and the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection, and related provisions contained in the Utah Constitution.
Court Case
Jun 2023
LGBTQ Rights
Vasquez v. Iowa Department of Human Services
On May 31st, 2019, the ACLU of Iowa and National ACLU LGBTQ and HIV Project filed a lawsuit to block implementation of an Iowa law that was recently passed to restore the ban on Medicaid coverage for essential, gender-affirming surgery to transgender Iowans that the Iowa Supreme recently struck down.
Explore case
Court Case
Jun 2023
LGBTQ Rights
Vasquez v. Iowa Department of Human Services
On May 31st, 2019, the ACLU of Iowa and National ACLU LGBTQ and HIV Project filed a lawsuit to block implementation of an Iowa law that was recently passed to restore the ban on Medicaid coverage for essential, gender-affirming surgery to transgender Iowans that the Iowa Supreme recently struck down.
Kentucky Supreme Court
Jun 2023
Free Speech
Civil Liberties
ARKK Properties v. Cameron
In 2023, the Kentucky General Assembly passed a new law that targets only those Kentuckians who “challenge the constitutionality” of a state statute or similar law and seek relief against a state defendant in state court. Under S.B. 126, any party to a covered lawsuit will have a unilateral right to require transfer of the case from the circuit court where it was properly filed to a randomly chosen circuit anywhere else in the state, potentially hundreds of miles away and at great cost to Kentuckians who stand up for their rights. The ACLU of Kentucky, the Kentucky Equal Justice Center, and the Kentucky Resources Council—with representation from attorneys at the ACLU of Kentucky and the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative—filed an amicus brief in the Kentucky Supreme Court, asking the Court to hold that the law violates the Kentucky Constitution. In October, the Kentucky Supreme Court invalidated S.B. 126, ruling in favor of the ACLU.
Explore case
Kentucky Supreme Court
Jun 2023
Free Speech
Civil Liberties
ARKK Properties v. Cameron
In 2023, the Kentucky General Assembly passed a new law that targets only those Kentuckians who “challenge the constitutionality” of a state statute or similar law and seek relief against a state defendant in state court. Under S.B. 126, any party to a covered lawsuit will have a unilateral right to require transfer of the case from the circuit court where it was properly filed to a randomly chosen circuit anywhere else in the state, potentially hundreds of miles away and at great cost to Kentuckians who stand up for their rights. The ACLU of Kentucky, the Kentucky Equal Justice Center, and the Kentucky Resources Council—with representation from attorneys at the ACLU of Kentucky and the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative—filed an amicus brief in the Kentucky Supreme Court, asking the Court to hold that the law violates the Kentucky Constitution. In October, the Kentucky Supreme Court invalidated S.B. 126, ruling in favor of the ACLU.
Nebraska Supreme Court
May 2023
Reproductive Freedom
LGBTQ Rights
Planned Parenthood of the Heartland v. Hilgers
In May 2023, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Nebraska filed a lawsuit on behalf of Nebraska abortion providers and their patients challenging a state law that bans physicians from providing abortion after 12 weeks of pregnancy and that, as of October 2023, will restrict health care available to trans youth. The ACLU has asked a state court in Nebraska to enter an emergency order blocking the law’s enforcement. The Court ruled that the two halves of L.B. 574 fall within the single subject of regulating health care, and thus the Court held that L.B. 574 does not violate the single-subject rule. Consequently, the abortion ban and gender-affirming care restrictions in L.B. 574 remain in effect. However, the Court did reject the state’s argument that the single-subject is a nonjusticiable political question.
Explore case
Nebraska Supreme Court
May 2023
Reproductive Freedom
LGBTQ Rights
Planned Parenthood of the Heartland v. Hilgers
In May 2023, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Nebraska filed a lawsuit on behalf of Nebraska abortion providers and their patients challenging a state law that bans physicians from providing abortion after 12 weeks of pregnancy and that, as of October 2023, will restrict health care available to trans youth. The ACLU has asked a state court in Nebraska to enter an emergency order blocking the law’s enforcement. The Court ruled that the two halves of L.B. 574 fall within the single subject of regulating health care, and thus the Court held that L.B. 574 does not violate the single-subject rule. Consequently, the abortion ban and gender-affirming care restrictions in L.B. 574 remain in effect. However, the Court did reject the state’s argument that the single-subject is a nonjusticiable political question.