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 26, 2026
Ongoing
Updated May 4, 2026
Ongoing
Updated April 30, 2026
Ongoing
Updated March 16, 2026
Featured
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.
New Hampshire
May 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.
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.
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.
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
1,711 Court Cases
Massachusetts
Jan 2017
Smart Justice
Criminal Law Reform
Bridgeman et. al v. District Attorney for Suffolk County et. al
Update: On January 18, 2017, the Massachusetts Supreme Court directed district attorneys to dismiss thousands of drug offense cases that were tainted by the misconduct of chemist Annie Dookhan. Prosecutors must produce a list of all drug convictions they plan to dismiss, and also produce a list of cases that they wish to re-prosecute, both within 90 days. They will be permitted to re-prosecute cases only if they certify they can do so on the basis of untainted evidence. The people hurt by Annie Dookhan’s actions deserve justice from the prosecutors who have the power to right thousands of grave wrongs by dismissing these cases.
Explore case
Massachusetts
Jan 2017
Smart Justice
Criminal Law Reform
Bridgeman et. al v. District Attorney for Suffolk County et. al
Update: On January 18, 2017, the Massachusetts Supreme Court directed district attorneys to dismiss thousands of drug offense cases that were tainted by the misconduct of chemist Annie Dookhan. Prosecutors must produce a list of all drug convictions they plan to dismiss, and also produce a list of cases that they wish to re-prosecute, both within 90 days. They will be permitted to re-prosecute cases only if they certify they can do so on the basis of untainted evidence. The people hurt by Annie Dookhan’s actions deserve justice from the prosecutors who have the power to right thousands of grave wrongs by dismissing these cases.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2017
Free Speech
Packingham v. North Carolina
Whether North Carolina can prohibit individuals who are registered sex offenders from “accessing” any social media websites.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2017
Free Speech
Packingham v. North Carolina
Whether North Carolina can prohibit individuals who are registered sex offenders from “accessing” any social media websites.
Court Case
Jan 2017
National Security
ACLU v. NSA – FOIA Lawsuit Seeking Records of Government Use of Section 702 of FISA
Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act permits warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international communications, and the government has used that authority to seize and search the personal communications of Americans and others on an immense scale. In September 2016, the ACLU submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to several government agencies seeking basic information about how the government conducts surveillance under Section 702. In November 2016, we filed a lawsuit to enforce the request in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Explore case
Court Case
Jan 2017
National Security
ACLU v. NSA – FOIA Lawsuit Seeking Records of Government Use of Section 702 of FISA
Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act permits warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international communications, and the government has used that authority to seize and search the personal communications of Americans and others on an immense scale. In September 2016, the ACLU submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to several government agencies seeking basic information about how the government conducts surveillance under Section 702. In November 2016, we filed a lawsuit to enforce the request in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Court Case
Dec 2016
National Security
ACLU v. DOJ - FOIA Case for Records Relating to Killing of Three U.S. Citizens
In October 2011, the ACLU submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking information about the killings of three U.S. citizens in Yemen: Anwar al-Aulaqi; his 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi; and Samir Kahn. Over five years of litigation, this case was appealed to the Second Circuit three times. The government acknowledged it had killed the three Americans, and was forced to describe targeted-killing program documents in its possession. The ACLU won an important victory in securing the release of a memorandum in which the government set out its legal justification for killing Anwar al-Aulaqi in June 2014. In December 2016, the Second Circuit ruled that no other documents must be disclosed, concluding this litigation. The ACLU continues to seek additional details about the targeted killing program’s rules and consequences through other FOIA requests and cases.
Explore case
Court Case
Dec 2016
National Security
ACLU v. DOJ - FOIA Case for Records Relating to Killing of Three U.S. Citizens
In October 2011, the ACLU submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking information about the killings of three U.S. citizens in Yemen: Anwar al-Aulaqi; his 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi; and Samir Kahn. Over five years of litigation, this case was appealed to the Second Circuit three times. The government acknowledged it had killed the three Americans, and was forced to describe targeted-killing program documents in its possession. The ACLU won an important victory in securing the release of a memorandum in which the government set out its legal justification for killing Anwar al-Aulaqi in June 2014. In December 2016, the Second Circuit ruled that no other documents must be disclosed, concluding this litigation. The ACLU continues to seek additional details about the targeted killing program’s rules and consequences through other FOIA requests and cases.
Court Case
Dec 2016
National Security
ACLU v. CIA - FOIA Case for Records Relating to Drone Killings
In a Freedom of Information Act request filed on January 13, 2010, the ACLU asked the government to disclose the legal and factual basis for its use of predator drones to conduct "targeted killings" overseas. In particular, the ACLU sought to find out when, where, and against whom drone strikes can be authorized, and how the United States ensures compliance with international laws relating to extrajudicial killings.
Explore case
Court Case
Dec 2016
National Security
ACLU v. CIA - FOIA Case for Records Relating to Drone Killings
In a Freedom of Information Act request filed on January 13, 2010, the ACLU asked the government to disclose the legal and factual basis for its use of predator drones to conduct "targeted killings" overseas. In particular, the ACLU sought to find out when, where, and against whom drone strikes can be authorized, and how the United States ensures compliance with international laws relating to extrajudicial killings.