Supreme Court Term 2025-2026

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.

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.

Rosas v. Luna is a class action lawsuit brought by the ACLU of Southern California (ACLU SoCal), the ACLU’s National Prison Project (NPP), and the law firm of Paul Hastings LLP in 2012 against the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD) over its routine, excessive, and unnecessary use of force against incarcerated people in the Los Angeles Jail system.

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.