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
1,699 Court Cases
Montana
Feb 2026
LGBTQ Rights
Marquez v. State of Montana
Amelia Marquez is transgender woman and life-long Montanan. John Doe is a transgender man who was born in Montana, but currently lives out of state. Both wish to correct the sex marker on their birth certificates to reflect who they are. However, a law enacted in 2021, Montana Senate Bill 280, sought to prohibit transgender individuals born in Montana from correcting the sex marker listed on their birth certificate without obtaining a court order indicating that their “sex . . . has been changed by surgical procedure.” The ACLU, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP have sued, claiming that SB 280 violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the Montana State Constitution.
Explore case
Montana
Feb 2026
LGBTQ Rights
Marquez v. State of Montana
Amelia Marquez is transgender woman and life-long Montanan. John Doe is a transgender man who was born in Montana, but currently lives out of state. Both wish to correct the sex marker on their birth certificates to reflect who they are. However, a law enacted in 2021, Montana Senate Bill 280, sought to prohibit transgender individuals born in Montana from correcting the sex marker listed on their birth certificate without obtaining a court order indicating that their “sex . . . has been changed by surgical procedure.” The ACLU, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP have sued, claiming that SB 280 violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the Montana State Constitution.
Kansas
Feb 2026
LGBTQ Rights
Loe v. Kansas
In May 2025, two transgender adolescents and their parents filed a challenge in Kansas state court against SB 63, a state law prohibiting access to gender-affirming medical treatments for transgender people under 18. Access to gender-affirming medical care, such as hormone therapies and pubertal suppressants, for transgender adolescents is supported by the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Explore case
Kansas
Feb 2026
LGBTQ Rights
Loe v. Kansas
In May 2025, two transgender adolescents and their parents filed a challenge in Kansas state court against SB 63, a state law prohibiting access to gender-affirming medical treatments for transgender people under 18. Access to gender-affirming medical care, such as hormone therapies and pubertal suppressants, for transgender adolescents is supported by the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Indiana
Feb 2026
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
Feb 2026
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.
North Carolina
Feb 2026
LGBTQ Rights
Zayre-Brown v. North Carolina Department of Adult Corrections
The North Carolina Department of Public Safety has continually denied Kanautica Zayre-Brown, an incarcerated transgender woman in their custody, access to gender-affirming surgery.
Explore case
North Carolina
Feb 2026
LGBTQ Rights
Zayre-Brown v. North Carolina Department of Adult Corrections
The North Carolina Department of Public Safety has continually denied Kanautica Zayre-Brown, an incarcerated transgender woman in their custody, access to gender-affirming surgery.
Ohio
Feb 2026
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, et al. v. Ohio Department of Health, et al.
In December 2020, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed into law Senate Bill 27, a fetal tissue disposal requirement that mandates burial or cremation of all embryonic and fetal tissue from a procedural abortion, imposing severe burdens on patients and stigmatizing essential care. On January 31, 2022, an Ohio judge preliminarily enjoined the law, finding that the law likely violates the Ohio state constitution’s guarantees of due process and equal protection. The victory followed a previous April 5, 2021, preliminary injunction halting enforcement of the law, because compliance would have been impossible due to the Ohio Department of Health’s (ODH) failure to establish necessary rules and regulations.
In April 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, adding a claim that the law violated the newly established Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment of the Ohio Constitution, and in August 2024 filed a 12(C) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, arguing that Senate Bill 27 is unconstitutional as a matter of law under that Amendment for discriminatorily targeting procedural abortion. In February 2025, the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas agreed, granting the Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings and permanently enjoining enforcement of Senate Bill 27.
In February 2026, the Ohio First District Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's permanent injunction, ruling that the requirements under Senate Bill 27 violate the state constitution's Reproductive Freedom Amendment, which took effect in December 2023 after being approved by voters.
This lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Ohio, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and Fanon Rucker of the Cochran Law Firm on behalf of Ohio abortion providers.
Explore case
Ohio
Feb 2026
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, et al. v. Ohio Department of Health, et al.
In December 2020, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed into law Senate Bill 27, a fetal tissue disposal requirement that mandates burial or cremation of all embryonic and fetal tissue from a procedural abortion, imposing severe burdens on patients and stigmatizing essential care. On January 31, 2022, an Ohio judge preliminarily enjoined the law, finding that the law likely violates the Ohio state constitution’s guarantees of due process and equal protection. The victory followed a previous April 5, 2021, preliminary injunction halting enforcement of the law, because compliance would have been impossible due to the Ohio Department of Health’s (ODH) failure to establish necessary rules and regulations.
In April 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, adding a claim that the law violated the newly established Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment of the Ohio Constitution, and in August 2024 filed a 12(C) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, arguing that Senate Bill 27 is unconstitutional as a matter of law under that Amendment for discriminatorily targeting procedural abortion. In February 2025, the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas agreed, granting the Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings and permanently enjoining enforcement of Senate Bill 27.
In February 2026, the Ohio First District Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's permanent injunction, ruling that the requirements under Senate Bill 27 violate the state constitution's Reproductive Freedom Amendment, which took effect in December 2023 after being approved by voters.
This lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Ohio, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and Fanon Rucker of the Cochran Law Firm on behalf of Ohio abortion providers.