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
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.
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
1,690 Court Cases
Texas
Dec 2025
Voting Rights
League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) v. Texas (Amicus)
In August 2025, during a special session called to further gerrymander Texas’s congressional map, the State’s legislature passed a districting plan that weakens electoral opportunities for Black and Hispanic voters. Along with other partner civil rights and racial justice organizations, the ACLU and ACLU of Texas have filed an amicus brief in federal court to support plaintiffs challenging Texas's new maps. Our brief argues that Texas’ justifications for mid-decade redistricting are baseless and emphasizes that lawmakers cannot augment their political power by intentionally harming Black and Hispanic voters.
Explore case
Texas
Dec 2025
Voting Rights
League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) v. Texas (Amicus)
In August 2025, during a special session called to further gerrymander Texas’s congressional map, the State’s legislature passed a districting plan that weakens electoral opportunities for Black and Hispanic voters. Along with other partner civil rights and racial justice organizations, the ACLU and ACLU of Texas have filed an amicus brief in federal court to support plaintiffs challenging Texas's new maps. Our brief argues that Texas’ justifications for mid-decade redistricting are baseless and emphasizes that lawmakers cannot augment their political power by intentionally harming Black and Hispanic voters.
Court Case
Dec 2025
Free Speech
FOIA Request for DHS Records on Practices Regarding Persons Who Record Immigration or Law Enforcement Activity and/or Publish Information
Explore case
Court Case
Dec 2025
Free Speech
FOIA Request for DHS Records on Practices Regarding Persons Who Record Immigration or Law Enforcement Activity and/or Publish Information
Arkansas
Dec 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Brandt et al v. Rutledge et al
Four families of transgender youth and two doctors have challenged an Arkansas law that would prohibit healthcare professionals from providing or even referring transgender young people for medically necessary health care. The law would also bar any state funds or insurance coverage for gender-affirming health care for transgender people under 18, and it would allow private insurers to refuse to cover gender-affirming care for people of any age. The lawsuit, filed in federal court, alleges that House Bill 1570 is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Explore case
Arkansas
Dec 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Brandt et al v. Rutledge et al
Four families of transgender youth and two doctors have challenged an Arkansas law that would prohibit healthcare professionals from providing or even referring transgender young people for medically necessary health care. The law would also bar any state funds or insurance coverage for gender-affirming health care for transgender people under 18, and it would allow private insurers to refuse to cover gender-affirming care for people of any age. The lawsuit, filed in federal court, alleges that House Bill 1570 is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Kentucky Supreme Court
Dec 2025
Civil Liberties
Commonwealth v. Davis and Commonwealth v. Kentucky Education Association
This case asks whether Kentucky’s legislature can legally favor some unions by giving them preferential treatment and disfavor others. A recent law does just that: SB 7 prohibits public employers from allowing their employees to use payroll deductions for union dues yet expressly exempts law enforcement and fire protection unions from this prohibition. Two state circuit courts and the Court of Appeals have held that this law violates the Kentucky Constitution’s equal protection guarantee. The State now appeals to the Kentucky Supreme Court. The Court’s decision has important implications for equal protection, free speech, and labor rights in Kentucky.
Explore case
Kentucky Supreme Court
Dec 2025
Civil Liberties
Commonwealth v. Davis and Commonwealth v. Kentucky Education Association
This case asks whether Kentucky’s legislature can legally favor some unions by giving them preferential treatment and disfavor others. A recent law does just that: SB 7 prohibits public employers from allowing their employees to use payroll deductions for union dues yet expressly exempts law enforcement and fire protection unions from this prohibition. Two state circuit courts and the Court of Appeals have held that this law violates the Kentucky Constitution’s equal protection guarantee. The State now appeals to the Kentucky Supreme Court. The Court’s decision has important implications for equal protection, free speech, and labor rights in Kentucky.
Michigan Supreme Court
Dec 2025
Criminal Law Reform
People of the State of Michigan v. Serges
At the core of this case is the question of whether the government can extract and test our DNA without a warrant. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative and Project on Speech, Privacy, and Technology, together with the ACLU of Michigan, filed an amicus brief arguing that, since our DNA contains vast amounts of highly sensitive information about us, DNA testing and extraction constitute a search and therefore require a warrant under both the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, section 11 of the Michigan Constitution. If there were no warrant requirement, as the State urges, police would be able to arrest someone for one offense, even pretextually, and limitlessly test their DNA to investigate unrelated crimes. This would especially impact people from marginalized populations who are most likely to be subject to these police practices.
Explore case
Michigan Supreme Court
Dec 2025
Criminal Law Reform
People of the State of Michigan v. Serges
At the core of this case is the question of whether the government can extract and test our DNA without a warrant. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative and Project on Speech, Privacy, and Technology, together with the ACLU of Michigan, filed an amicus brief arguing that, since our DNA contains vast amounts of highly sensitive information about us, DNA testing and extraction constitute a search and therefore require a warrant under both the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, section 11 of the Michigan Constitution. If there were no warrant requirement, as the State urges, police would be able to arrest someone for one offense, even pretextually, and limitlessly test their DNA to investigate unrelated crimes. This would especially impact people from marginalized populations who are most likely to be subject to these police practices.