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 May 19, 2026
Ongoing
Updated May 4, 2026
Ongoing
Updated April 30, 2026
Ongoing
Updated March 16, 2026
Featured
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.
Massachusetts
May 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.
Court Case
May 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.
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.
Missouri
Apr 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
All Cases
1,710 Court Cases
Indiana
Feb 2026
LGBTQ Rights
K.C. v. Medical Licensing Board of Indiana
Four Hoosier families, joined by medical providers, are challenging an Indiana law passed in April 2023 barring access to gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Indiana is home to over 4,000 transgender adolescents and the health care targeted by this law is supported by the entire mainstream of the medical community.
Explore case
Indiana
Feb 2026
LGBTQ Rights
K.C. v. Medical Licensing Board of Indiana
Four Hoosier families, joined by medical providers, are challenging an Indiana law passed in April 2023 barring access to gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Indiana is home to over 4,000 transgender adolescents and the health care targeted by this law is supported by the entire mainstream of the medical community.
Court Case
Feb 2026
LGBTQ Rights
Hammons v. UMMS
Jesse Hammons was denied a commonly performed medical procedure at the University of Maryland St. Joseph Medical Center because he is transgender. The taxpayer-owned hospital claims that providing Hammons with medical care would be a violation of their religious beliefs.
Explore case
Court Case
Feb 2026
LGBTQ Rights
Hammons v. UMMS
Jesse Hammons was denied a commonly performed medical procedure at the University of Maryland St. Joseph Medical Center because he is transgender. The taxpayer-owned hospital claims that providing Hammons with medical care would be a violation of their religious beliefs.
California
Feb 2026
Immigrants' Rights
Maldonado Bautista v. DHS
Whether noncitizen residents of the United States who entered without inspection are lawfully subject to a new policy requiring their mandatory detention without the opportunity for release on bond during the pendency of their lengthy removal proceedings.
Explore case
California
Feb 2026
Immigrants' Rights
Maldonado Bautista v. DHS
Whether noncitizen residents of the United States who entered without inspection are lawfully subject to a new policy requiring their mandatory detention without the opportunity for release on bond during the pendency of their lengthy removal proceedings.
U.S. Supreme Court
Feb 2026
LGBTQ Rights
West Virginia v. B.P.J.
Becky is a student in West Virginia who is starting high school. Three years ago, as Becky was preparing to begin middle school, West Virginia passed a law categorically banning transgender girls from participating in all school sports. Becky loves being part of a team and wanted to be able to participate in cross-country and track and field with her friends. She sued, arguing that West Virginia's law violated the Constitution and Title IX as applied to her, especially because she has received medication from the onset of puberty and has never experienced any physiological changes associated with puberty for boys. As a result of an injunction issued by the lower courts, she has been able to participate in middle school cross-country and track and field for the past three years. Becky and her mother are represented by the ACLU, the ACLU of West Virginia, Lambda Legal and Cooley LLP.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Feb 2026
LGBTQ Rights
West Virginia v. B.P.J.
Becky is a student in West Virginia who is starting high school. Three years ago, as Becky was preparing to begin middle school, West Virginia passed a law categorically banning transgender girls from participating in all school sports. Becky loves being part of a team and wanted to be able to participate in cross-country and track and field with her friends. She sued, arguing that West Virginia's law violated the Constitution and Title IX as applied to her, especially because she has received medication from the onset of puberty and has never experienced any physiological changes associated with puberty for boys. As a result of an injunction issued by the lower courts, she has been able to participate in middle school cross-country and track and field for the past three years. Becky and her mother are represented by the ACLU, the ACLU of West Virginia, Lambda Legal and Cooley LLP.
Court Case
Feb 2026
National Security
ACLU v. Department of Homeland Security (CP3 FOIA)
In 2021, the Department of Homeland Security announced the establishment of the Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships, also known as CP3, and a domestic terrorism branch within the Office of Intelligence and Analysis. These initiatives are a product of DHS's new measures to address domestic violent extremism, and little is known about these programs and the effects they'll have on members of the public. DHS has a history of similar harmful programs, which have targeted communities of color, immigrants and Muslim communities. The public has a right to know about the impacts of CP3 and the I&A domestic terrorism branch on the civil rights, liberties and privacy of communities of color, immigrants and other marginalized communities. In 2022, the ACLU submitted a FOIA request to compel the government to release information about these initiatives. It is imperative that the public gain a greater understanding about the policies, practices, methods and goals of both CP3 and the I&A domestic terrorism branch. After DHS produced records, the ACLU dismissed the case in February 2026.
Explore case
Court Case
Feb 2026
National Security
ACLU v. Department of Homeland Security (CP3 FOIA)
In 2021, the Department of Homeland Security announced the establishment of the Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships, also known as CP3, and a domestic terrorism branch within the Office of Intelligence and Analysis. These initiatives are a product of DHS's new measures to address domestic violent extremism, and little is known about these programs and the effects they'll have on members of the public. DHS has a history of similar harmful programs, which have targeted communities of color, immigrants and Muslim communities. The public has a right to know about the impacts of CP3 and the I&A domestic terrorism branch on the civil rights, liberties and privacy of communities of color, immigrants and other marginalized communities. In 2022, the ACLU submitted a FOIA request to compel the government to release information about these initiatives. It is imperative that the public gain a greater understanding about the policies, practices, methods and goals of both CP3 and the I&A domestic terrorism branch. After DHS produced records, the ACLU dismissed the case in February 2026.