Supreme Court Term 2025-2026
We’re breaking down the cases we've asked the court to consider this term.
Latest Case Updates
Updated September 10, 2026
Ongoing
Updated September 8, 2026
Closed
Updated August 31, 2026
Ongoing
Updated August 31, 2026
Featured
Florida
Oct 2026
National Security
+2 Issues
CAIR-Foundation, Inc and CAIR Florida, Inc. v. DeSantis et al.
The ACLU, the ACLU of Florida, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and their partners represent CAIR and CAIR-Florida in two federal lawsuits challenging Governor DeSantis’s unconstitutional and baseless designation of the nonprofits as “terrorist.” The lawsuits allege violations of CAIR and CAIR-Florida’s rights under the First Amendment and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Court Case
Sep 2026
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.
Ohio
Sep 2026
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.
Massachusetts
Sep 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.
Oregon Supreme Court
Aug 2026
LGBTQ Rights
Prisoners' Rights
Zyst v. Miller
Following the Oregon Department of Corrections’ unconstitutional treatment of a transgender prisoner, a habeas court ordered her removal from segregated housing, an individualized gender-affirming care assessment, a psychiatric evaluation, and identification of an appropriate cellmate. However, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the psychiatric-evaluation and cellmate orders, finding them “too attenuated” to qualify as habeas relief. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Oregon, joined an amicus brief by the law firm Sugerman Dahab arguing that habeas courts have broad discretion to remedy violations and resulting harms. The brief explains that the Court of Appeals’ “close connection” test unduly constricts habeas relief, and which should be construed to encompass not only the need to halt ongoing constitutional violations, but also the need to mitigate various harms that may arise from those violations.
Arizona
Jul 2026
Prisoners' Rights
Jensen v. Thornell
UPDATE: On July 17, 2026, U.S. District Judge Roslyn O. Silver issued an order formally appointing a receiver to assume control and management of health care provided to more than 25,000 people incarcerated in Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry (ADCRR) prisons, in a long-running lawsuit against the state prison system brought by the Prison Law Office, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of Arizona, and Disability Rights Arizona. More details here.
New Hampshire
Jul 2026
Voting Rights
Coalition for Open Democracy v. Scanlan
This lawsuit challenges HB 1569, a new law that will make New Hampshire the only state to require every person to produce documentary proof of citizenship when they register to vote for both state and federal elections. It also challenges HB 1569’s elimination a preexisting protection for voters—namely, an affidavit option that allowed voters who faced surprise challenges to their eligibility at the polls to swear to their qualifications and cast a ballot. Accordingly, HB 1569 violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution by placing substantial burdens on New Hampshirites at all stages of the voting process, and will arbitrarily disenfranchise hundreds, if not thousands of qualified voters.
U.S. Supreme Court
May 2026
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.
U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 2026
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.
All Cases
1,756 Court Cases
New York
Aug 2026
National Security
ACLU v. DOJ – FOIA Lawsuit Seeking Records About the Use of JTTFs and Fusion Centers to Target Protesters and Communities of Color
Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) and fusion centers are joint federal-state law enforcement intelligence hubs with a long history of investigating, collecting, and disseminating information on protesters and communities of color, but the public has little information about how these entities work and their impact on our rights. In May 2024, the ACLU filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act seeking the release of records on the use of JTTFs and fusion centers to target protesters and communities of color and the adequacy of the privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties policies that apply to them. When the government failed to release records, we filed suit in July 2024 to compel public disclosure of these documents. After the government produced records, the ACLU dismissed the case in July 2025.
Explore case
New York
Aug 2026
National Security
ACLU v. DOJ – FOIA Lawsuit Seeking Records About the Use of JTTFs and Fusion Centers to Target Protesters and Communities of Color
Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) and fusion centers are joint federal-state law enforcement intelligence hubs with a long history of investigating, collecting, and disseminating information on protesters and communities of color, but the public has little information about how these entities work and their impact on our rights. In May 2024, the ACLU filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act seeking the release of records on the use of JTTFs and fusion centers to target protesters and communities of color and the adequacy of the privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties policies that apply to them. When the government failed to release records, we filed suit in July 2024 to compel public disclosure of these documents. After the government produced records, the ACLU dismissed the case in July 2025.
Minnesota Supreme Court
Aug 2026
Criminal Law Reform
State v. Engel
The Minnesota Supreme Court is poised to decide whether there are any circumstances in which someone subjected to an unconstitutional traffic stop can suppress evidence that he temporarily avoided the police when they initiated the unconstitutional stop. The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that evidence of even temporary “flight” can never be suppressed—even when someone simply delays acquiescing to an unconstitutional traffic stop—on the theory that fleeing from the police is a crime. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Minnesota and the law firm Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, filed an amicus brief arguing that Article I, Sections 8 and 10 of the Minnesota Constitution—which guarantee Minnesotans remedies for constitutional violations and protect them from unreasonable searches and seizures—require a broad application of the exclusionary rule. Accordingly, we argue that the Court should use a flexible, multi-factor test that can allow for suppression of evidence where a suspect, as in this case, responds to an illegal stop or seizure with nonviolent attempts to keep himself safe.
Explore case
Minnesota Supreme Court
Aug 2026
Criminal Law Reform
State v. Engel
The Minnesota Supreme Court is poised to decide whether there are any circumstances in which someone subjected to an unconstitutional traffic stop can suppress evidence that he temporarily avoided the police when they initiated the unconstitutional stop. The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that evidence of even temporary “flight” can never be suppressed—even when someone simply delays acquiescing to an unconstitutional traffic stop—on the theory that fleeing from the police is a crime. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Minnesota and the law firm Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, filed an amicus brief arguing that Article I, Sections 8 and 10 of the Minnesota Constitution—which guarantee Minnesotans remedies for constitutional violations and protect them from unreasonable searches and seizures—require a broad application of the exclusionary rule. Accordingly, we argue that the Court should use a flexible, multi-factor test that can allow for suppression of evidence where a suspect, as in this case, responds to an illegal stop or seizure with nonviolent attempts to keep himself safe.
Massachusetts
Aug 2026
Voting Rights
United States v. Galvin
The Department of Justice (DOJ) sued the Massachusetts Secretary of State Galvin, seeking private, confidential voter data. DOJ’s efforts appear to be part of an effort to build a national voter database without congressional authorization and to improperly question the validity of state voter rolls.
Explore case
Massachusetts
Aug 2026
Voting Rights
United States v. Galvin
The Department of Justice (DOJ) sued the Massachusetts Secretary of State Galvin, seeking private, confidential voter data. DOJ’s efforts appear to be part of an effort to build a national voter database without congressional authorization and to improperly question the validity of state voter rolls.
U.S. Supreme Court
Aug 2026
Religious Liberty
Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District
A group of Texas families are challenging a 2025 Texas law, S.B. 10, that requires public schools to conspicuously display a state-selected, Protestant version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. Nearly 50 years ago, the Supreme Court overturned a similar Kentucky law because it violated the First Amendment. After an appellate court ruled that S.B. 10 does not violate the Constitution, the Christian, Jewish, Hindu, and nonreligious families involved in the lawsuit are asking the Supreme Court to hear their case and to block the law. The First Amendment prohibits states from forcing scripture on public-school students, and it guarantees families — not politicians or the government — the right to guide children’s religious belief and education.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Aug 2026
Religious Liberty
Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District
A group of Texas families are challenging a 2025 Texas law, S.B. 10, that requires public schools to conspicuously display a state-selected, Protestant version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. Nearly 50 years ago, the Supreme Court overturned a similar Kentucky law because it violated the First Amendment. After an appellate court ruled that S.B. 10 does not violate the Constitution, the Christian, Jewish, Hindu, and nonreligious families involved in the lawsuit are asking the Supreme Court to hear their case and to block the law. The First Amendment prohibits states from forcing scripture on public-school students, and it guarantees families — not politicians or the government — the right to guide children’s religious belief and education.