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
1,693 Court Cases
Alabama
Oct 2025
Voting Rights
Alabama State Conference of the NAACP v. Allen
Alabama State Conference of the NAACP v. Allen challenges Alabama’s most recently drawn state legislative maps as dilutive of Black voting power in the state in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Explore case
Alabama
Oct 2025
Voting Rights
Alabama State Conference of the NAACP v. Allen
Alabama State Conference of the NAACP v. Allen challenges Alabama’s most recently drawn state legislative maps as dilutive of Black voting power in the state in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Hawaiʻi
Oct 2025
Reproductive Freedom
Purcell v. Kennedy (formerly Chelius v. Becerra)
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.
Explore case
Hawaiʻi
Oct 2025
Reproductive Freedom
Purcell v. Kennedy (formerly Chelius v. Becerra)
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.
Rhode Island Supreme Court
Oct 2025
Civil Liberties
Parente et al. v. Lefebvre et al.
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.
Explore case
Rhode Island Supreme Court
Oct 2025
Civil Liberties
Parente et al. v. Lefebvre et al.
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.
Washington, D.C.
Oct 2025
Voting Rights
Comments on Petition of America First Legal for Rulemaking Before the Election Assistance Commission
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.
Explore case
Washington, D.C.
Oct 2025
Voting Rights
Comments on Petition of America First Legal for Rulemaking Before the Election Assistance Commission
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.
Utah Supreme Court
Oct 2025
Civil Liberties
State v. Uptain
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.
Explore case
Utah Supreme Court
Oct 2025
Civil Liberties
State v. Uptain
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.