Filed
May 25, 2021
Fighting For The Rights Of Trans Youth in Arkansas
Brandt et al v. Rutledge et al

Several doctors and families are challenging a discriminatory Arkansas law that would prohibit healthcare professionals from providing or even referring transgender youth for medically necessary health care. Their case is being heard this week in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

What you can do

Take the Pledge: Support Trans Youth Now
Take the Pledge: Support Trans Youth Now
Stay informed about our latest work in the courts
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU's privacy policy.
Featured

Prisoners' Rights
Alex A. v. Edwards
Status: Ongoing
The ACLU National Prison Project and partner civil rights attorneys filed a federal class-action lawsuit to prevent the transfer of children in the custody of Louisiana’s Office of Juvenile Justice to the Louisiana State Penitentiary, commonly known as Angola Prison.
Visit case page

National Security
Wikimedia v. NSA - Challenge to Upstream Surveillance
Status: Ongoing
The ACLU is challenging the constitutionality of the NSA’s mass interception and searching of Americans’ international Internet communications. At issue is the NSA’s “Upstream” surveillance, through which the U.S. government systematically monitors private emails, messages, and other data flowing into and out of the country on the Internet’s central arteries. The ACLU’s lawsuit was brought on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation and eight legal, human rights, and media organizations, which together engage in trillions of sensitive communications and have been harmed by Upstream surveillance.
Visit case page

Prisoners' Rights
Jensen v. Shinn
Status: Closed (Judgment)
UPDATE: U.S. District Judge Roslyn O. Silver found on June 30, 2022, that the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry (ADCRR) systematically violates the constitutional rights of persons incarcerated in the state’s prisons by failing to provide them minimally adequate medical and mental health care, and by subjecting them to harsh and deprived conditions in solitary confinement units.
Visit case page

Reproductive Freedom
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
Status: Closed (Judgment)
The case concerns the constitutionality of a Mississippi law prohibiting abortions after the fifteenth week of pregnancy. The state used the case as a vehicle to ask the Supreme Court to take away the federal constitutional right to abortion it first recognized 50 years before in Roe v. Wade. On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States accepted the state’s invitation and overturned Roe eliminating the federal constitutional right to abortion.
Visit case page

Privacy & Technology
FBI v. Fazaga
Status: Closed (Judgment)
In a case scheduled to be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on November 8, 2021, three Muslim Americans are challenging the FBI’s secret spying on them and their communities based on their religion, in violation of the Constitution and federal law. In what will likely be a landmark case, the plaintiffs — Yassir Fazaga, Ali Uddin Malik, and Yasser Abdelrahim — insist that the FBI cannot escape accountability for violating their religious freedom by invoking “state secrets.” The plaintiffs are represented by the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law, the ACLU of Southern California, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Council for American Islamic Relations, and the law firm of Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai.
Visit case page

Reproductive Freedom
Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center
Status: Closed (Judgment)
In 2018, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Kentucky filed a suit on behalf of Kentucky abortion providers and their patients challenging a state law banning physicians from providing a safe and medically proven abortion method called dilation and evacuation, or “D&E.” If it were to take effect, this law would prevent many patients from being able to obtain an abortion altogether. After two courts held that the law is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruled in March 2022 that Kentucky Attorney General Cameron can continue his pursuit to push abortion out of reach by intervening in the underlying challenge to an abortion ban, which is proceeding in a lower court.
Visit case page

Reproductive Freedom
Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson
Status: Closed (Judgment)
The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Texas, and coalition partners filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of abortion providers and funds on July 13, 2021, challenging S.B. 8, a Texas law allowing private citizens to enforce a ban on abortion as early as six weeks in pregnancy—before many know they are pregnant. The ACLU’s challenge made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court three times in as many months. After hearing oral arguments in the case, the Court issued a decision on December 10, 2021, that ended the most promising pathways to blocking the ban. The Supreme Court’s decision makes it more difficult to obtain adequate relief from the courts and gives states the green light to ban abortion using bounty-hunting schemes. Texas’ abortion ban will remain in effect until relief can be secured from a court.
Visit case page

Immigrants' Rights
Innovation Law Lab v. Wolf
Status: Ongoing
The American Civil Liberties Union, Southern Poverty Law Center, and Center for Gender & Refugee Studies filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s new policy forcing asylum seekers to return to Mexico and remain there while their cases are considered.
Visit case page
All Cases
January 23, 2023

January 23, 2023
Doe v. Madison Metropolitan School District
LGBTQ Rights
Status: Ongoing
In February 2020, several parents anonymously sued the Madison Metropolitan School District in Wisconsin state court. The parents claim that the school district’s guidance that seeks to provide support for transgender, non-binary, and gender-expansive students violates parental rights and religious freedom by allowing students to use names and pronouns at school different from those they were assigned at birth, without providing parental notification absent a student’s consent. The ACLU and ACLU of Wisconsin intervened in the case on behalf of LGBTQ student groups at schools in the district to help defend the district’s guidance.
Visit case page
January 23, 2023

January 23, 2023
Marquez v. State of Montana
LGBTQ Rights
Status: Ongoing
Amelia Marquez is a life-long Montanan who is transgender. Her birth certificate lists inaccurate and incorrect information. A recently passed law in Montana, Senate Bill 280, would prohibit them from correcting the gender listed on their certificate because they have not undergone the invasions and costly gender-affirming procedure. The ACLU, the ACLU of Montana and Nixon Peabody LLP have sued in saying SB 280 violates the equal protection clause of the Montana State Constitution.
Visit case page
January 20, 2023

January 20, 2023
Vasquez v. Iowa Department of Human Services
LGBTQ Rights
Status: Ongoing
On May 31st, 2019, the ACLU of Iowa and National ACLU LGBT 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.
Visit case page
January 20, 2023


January 20, 2023
Bridge v. Oklahoma State Department of Education
LGBTQ Rights
Status: Ongoing
Thousands of school districts across the country operate with nondiscrimination policies inclusive of their transgender students, including the legal right for these students to access facilities (bathrooms, locker rooms, etc.) consistent with their gender identity. These policies help protect transgender students from harassment, being isolated from their peers, and thrive in a learning environment that believes in their fundamental rights.
Visit case page
January 13, 2023

January 13, 2023
Rogers v. Health and Human Services
LGBTQ Rights
Status: Ongoing
Eden Rogers and Brandy Welch were turned away by a government-funded foster care agency for failing to meet the agency’s religious criteria which exclude prospective foster parents who are not evangelical Protestant Christian or who are same-sex couples of any faith.
Visit case page