Supreme Court Term 2025-2026

The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Hawaii, and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholar LLP, are challenging a U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) restriction that severely limits where and how patients can access mifepristone, a safe and effective medication used for abortion and miscarriage care.

This case asks whether state officials in Rhode Island can be held liable for their discriminatory acts under the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act (RICRA), a state anti-discrimination law. The State of Rhode Island asserts that it has sovereign immunity as to claims brought under the RICRA and therefore cannot be sued for damages for violating that law. The State Supreme Court Initiative and the ACLU of Rhode Island filed an amicus brief arguing that the State is wrong: discrimination claims under the RICRA are covered by the State Tort Claims Act’s broad waiver of state sovereign immunity for “all actions of torts.” Thus, state officials may be held liable when they engage in discrimination prohibited by the RICRA, allowing harmed Rhode Islanders to seek redress.

The ACLU, along with several partner organizations, is opposing a request to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission from the America First Legal Foundation (AFL) for a new rulemaking to consider changing the federal voter registration form to add a requirement for documentary proof of citizenship.   The federal voter registration form was created by the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), and under federal law almost all states in the country have to accept it as a form of mail voter registration. As intended by the NVRA, the form is a one page, streamlined application that an individual can complete and mail-in without providing any additional documentation. If the rules about the federal form are changed so that additional documentation is required, it is likely that many states would also change their own state voter registration forms to require documentary proof of citizenship.   This change would potentially disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens.

This case asks whether the trial record, without more, demonstrates that a defendant’s constitutional right to adequate legal representation has been violated, where the record reveals that the defendant’s attorney never sought to suppress the only incriminating evidence that the State had against them. The ACLU’s SSCI and the ACLU of Utah filed an amicus brief arguing that the defendant's trial counsel in this case was indeed ineffective and that holding otherwise would undermine the right to effective assistance of counsel.