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 February 25, 2026
Ongoing
Updated February 18, 2026
Ongoing
Updated January 26, 2026
Ongoing
Updated January 16, 2026
Featured
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.
Missouri
Feb 2026
Voting Rights
Missouri v. U.S. Department of Commerce
A coalition of civil rights and immigrant-rights organizations has moved to intervene as defendants in a lawsuit that threatens to dismantle the Constitution’s long-standing requirement that the decennial census count all people living in the United States. Missouri asks the court to exclude undocumented immigrants and people living in the country on temporary visas from the census count used to determine congressional representation—an unprecedented move that would upend more than two centuries of constitutional practice.
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
Dec 2025
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.
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.
All Cases
1,684 Court Cases
Arizona
Aug 2017
Criminal Law Reform
Cox v. Voyles, et. al.
The ACLU, the ACLU of Arizona, and the law firm Perkins Coie filed the case in 2015 against the Sheriff, the County Attorney, and other Pinal County, Arizona officials, for their enforcement of Arizona’s civil asset forfeiture laws.
The defendants filed three motions to dismiss, but a federal court ruled on August 18, 2017, that the claims at the heart of the case can move forward. The judge found that the lawsuit establishes a plausible claim that the state’s asset forfeiture laws violate due process rights “because Defendants have a financial incentive to zealously enforce the forfeiture laws.”
Explore case
Arizona
Aug 2017
Criminal Law Reform
Cox v. Voyles, et. al.
The ACLU, the ACLU of Arizona, and the law firm Perkins Coie filed the case in 2015 against the Sheriff, the County Attorney, and other Pinal County, Arizona officials, for their enforcement of Arizona’s civil asset forfeiture laws.
The defendants filed three motions to dismiss, but a federal court ruled on August 18, 2017, that the claims at the heart of the case can move forward. The judge found that the lawsuit establishes a plausible claim that the state’s asset forfeiture laws violate due process rights “because Defendants have a financial incentive to zealously enforce the forfeiture laws.”
Court Case
Aug 2017
National Security
Salim v. Mitchell – Lawsuit Against Psychologists Behind CIA Torture Program
The ACLU filed a lawsuit against James Elmer Mitchell and John “Bruce” Jessen, two psychologists contracted by the CIA to design, implement, and oversee the agency’s post-9/11 torture program. The suit, filed in October 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, was on behalf of three of the program’s victims. All three were kidnapped by the CIA, and tortured and experimented upon according to Mitchell and Jessen’s protocols. One of the men died as a result of his torture. The other two continue to suffer the effects of the physical and psychological torture inflicted on them. In August 2017, after the judge rejected attempts to dismiss the case and a trial was imminent, the psychologists agreed to a settlement — a first for a case involving CIA torture.
Explore case
Court Case
Aug 2017
National Security
Salim v. Mitchell – Lawsuit Against Psychologists Behind CIA Torture Program
The ACLU filed a lawsuit against James Elmer Mitchell and John “Bruce” Jessen, two psychologists contracted by the CIA to design, implement, and oversee the agency’s post-9/11 torture program. The suit, filed in October 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, was on behalf of three of the program’s victims. All three were kidnapped by the CIA, and tortured and experimented upon according to Mitchell and Jessen’s protocols. One of the men died as a result of his torture. The other two continue to suffer the effects of the physical and psychological torture inflicted on them. In August 2017, after the judge rejected attempts to dismiss the case and a trial was imminent, the psychologists agreed to a settlement — a first for a case involving CIA torture.
Court Case
Aug 2017
Immigrants' Rights
P.K. v. Tillerson
The ACLU filed a federal lawsuit challenging the State Department’s refusal to process visa applications for winners of the U.S. Diversity Visa Program lottery who hail from the six countries covered by President Trump’s Muslim ban. The ban currently blocks individuals from Iran, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Yemen, and Somalia, who do not have bona fide connections or fall within another exception, from entering the United States until September 24, 2017. It does not, however, allow the government to refuse to issue visas to them, in violation of federal statutes and regulations.
Explore case
Court Case
Aug 2017
Immigrants' Rights
P.K. v. Tillerson
The ACLU filed a federal lawsuit challenging the State Department’s refusal to process visa applications for winners of the U.S. Diversity Visa Program lottery who hail from the six countries covered by President Trump’s Muslim ban. The ban currently blocks individuals from Iran, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Yemen, and Somalia, who do not have bona fide connections or fall within another exception, from entering the United States until September 24, 2017. It does not, however, allow the government to refuse to issue visas to them, in violation of federal statutes and regulations.
Georgia
Aug 2017
Women's Rights
Alisha Coleman v. Bobby Dodd Institute
The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Georgia and co-counsel Buckley Beal LLP filed a brief in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that their client, Alisha Coleman, was subjected to unlawful workplace discrimination when she was fired for experiencing a heavy period, a symptom of premenopause.
Explore case
Georgia
Aug 2017
Women's Rights
Alisha Coleman v. Bobby Dodd Institute
The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Georgia and co-counsel Buckley Beal LLP filed a brief in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that their client, Alisha Coleman, was subjected to unlawful workplace discrimination when she was fired for experiencing a heavy period, a symptom of premenopause.
Nebraska
Aug 2017
Prisoners' Rights
Sabata v. Nebraska Department of Corrections et al
Nebraska state prisons are in a state of chaos that is endangering the health, safety, and lives of prisoners and staff on a daily basis. For over twenty years, Nebraska prisons have been overcrowded, under-resourced, and understaffed. Prisoners are consistently deprived of adequate health care, including medical, dental, and mental health care, and denied accommodations for their disabilities. Nebraska state prisoners, including juveniles, suffer in harsh isolation units for excessive terms, sometimes lasting for years. These harms must end.
Explore case
Nebraska
Aug 2017
Prisoners' Rights
Sabata v. Nebraska Department of Corrections et al
Nebraska state prisons are in a state of chaos that is endangering the health, safety, and lives of prisoners and staff on a daily basis. For over twenty years, Nebraska prisons have been overcrowded, under-resourced, and understaffed. Prisoners are consistently deprived of adequate health care, including medical, dental, and mental health care, and denied accommodations for their disabilities. Nebraska state prisoners, including juveniles, suffer in harsh isolation units for excessive terms, sometimes lasting for years. These harms must end.