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 January 9, 2026
Ongoing
Updated December 10, 2025
Ongoing
Updated December 10, 2025
Ongoing
Updated November 22, 2025
Featured
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.
Missouri
Sep 2025
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
Aug 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 this dilutes the voting strength of Black residents in state Supreme Court elections, in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution.
Louisiana
Aug 2025
Voting Rights
Nairne v. Landry
Nairne v. Landry poses a challenge under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to Louisiana’s House and Senate legislative maps on behalf of plaintiff Black voters and Black voters across the state.
Ohio
Jul 2025
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region et al., v. Ohio Department of Health, et al.
The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Ohio, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the law firm WilmerHale, and Fanon Rucker of the Cochran Law Firm, on behalf of Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio, Preterm-Cleveland, Women’s Med Group Professional Corporation, Dr. Sharon Liner, and Julia Quinn, MSN, BSN, amended a complaint in an existing lawsuit against a ban on telehealth medication abortion services to bring new claims under the Ohio Reproductive Freedom Amendment, including additional challenges to other laws in Ohio that restrict access to medication abortion in the state.
All Cases
1,652 Court Cases
Court Case
Dec 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Orr v. Trump
On his first day back in office in January 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order that led the State Department to suspend its policy allowing transgender, intersex, and nonbinary people to update the sex designations on their passports, leading some with pending applications to have their passports withheld from them and others to receive a new passport with the wrong sex designation listed. Soon after, the ACLU sued on behalf of seven transgender and nonbinary people on the grounds the policy violates their constitutional rights and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Explore case
Court Case
Dec 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Orr v. Trump
On his first day back in office in January 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order that led the State Department to suspend its policy allowing transgender, intersex, and nonbinary people to update the sex designations on their passports, leading some with pending applications to have their passports withheld from them and others to receive a new passport with the wrong sex designation listed. Soon after, the ACLU sued on behalf of seven transgender and nonbinary people on the grounds the policy violates their constitutional rights and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Michigan Supreme Court
Dec 2025
Criminal Law Reform
People of the State of Michigan v. Serges
At the core of this case is the question of whether the government can extract and test our DNA without a warrant. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative and Project on Speech, Privacy, and Technology, together with the ACLU of Michigan, filed an amicus brief arguing that, since our DNA contains vast amounts of highly sensitive information about us, DNA testing and extraction constitute a search and therefore require a warrant under both the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, section 11 of the Michigan Constitution. If there were no warrant requirement, as the State urges, police would be able to arrest someone for one offense, even pretextually, and limitlessly test their DNA to investigate unrelated crimes. This would especially impact people from marginalized populations who are most likely to be subject to these police practices.
Explore case
Michigan Supreme Court
Dec 2025
Criminal Law Reform
People of the State of Michigan v. Serges
At the core of this case is the question of whether the government can extract and test our DNA without a warrant. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative and Project on Speech, Privacy, and Technology, together with the ACLU of Michigan, filed an amicus brief arguing that, since our DNA contains vast amounts of highly sensitive information about us, DNA testing and extraction constitute a search and therefore require a warrant under both the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, section 11 of the Michigan Constitution. If there were no warrant requirement, as the State urges, police would be able to arrest someone for one offense, even pretextually, and limitlessly test their DNA to investigate unrelated crimes. This would especially impact people from marginalized populations who are most likely to be subject to these police practices.
Indiana
Dec 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Metropolitan School District of Martinsville v. A.C.
Alongside his parents, A.C., a boy who was barred from using the boys’ restroom with the other boys because he is transgender, has sued his Indiana school district for violating his right under federal law to attend school.
Explore case
Indiana
Dec 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Metropolitan School District of Martinsville v. A.C.
Alongside his parents, A.C., a boy who was barred from using the boys’ restroom with the other boys because he is transgender, has sued his Indiana school district for violating his right under federal law to attend school.
Maryland
Dec 2025
LGBTQ Rights
PFLAG v. Trump
Transgender young adults and families with transgender youth, together with PFLAG National and GLMA, filed a federal legal challenge against a January 2025 executive order from the Trump administration directing federal agencies to withhold funds from medical providers and institutions that provide gender-affirming medical treatments for people under nineteen.
Explore case
Maryland
Dec 2025
LGBTQ Rights
PFLAG v. Trump
Transgender young adults and families with transgender youth, together with PFLAG National and GLMA, filed a federal legal challenge against a January 2025 executive order from the Trump administration directing federal agencies to withhold funds from medical providers and institutions that provide gender-affirming medical treatments for people under nineteen.
Court Case
Dec 2025
Privacy & Technology
U.S. DOGE Service Access to Sensitive Agency Records Systems Multiagency FOIA
There are serious privacy concerns raised by reports that the United States DOGE (“Department of Government Efficiency”) Service (“USDS”) has gained access to federal agency systems, including those housing sensitive information like federal payment data, student loan data or federal employee records, and may be using artificial intelligence technology in analyzing them. The ACLU submitted a FOIA request to more than 40 federal agencies to provide the public with information on what federal records the agencies have provided to or been asked for by the USDS and if sensitive information and key decision-making has been outsourced to unvetted technology.
Explore case
Court Case
Dec 2025
Privacy & Technology
U.S. DOGE Service Access to Sensitive Agency Records Systems Multiagency FOIA
There are serious privacy concerns raised by reports that the United States DOGE (“Department of Government Efficiency”) Service (“USDS”) has gained access to federal agency systems, including those housing sensitive information like federal payment data, student loan data or federal employee records, and may be using artificial intelligence technology in analyzing them. The ACLU submitted a FOIA request to more than 40 federal agencies to provide the public with information on what federal records the agencies have provided to or been asked for by the USDS and if sensitive information and key decision-making has been outsourced to unvetted technology.