Supreme Court Term 2025-2026

This case will determine whether Minnesotans who prove ongoing discrimination by a city government are entitled to a court order blocking that discrimination, or whether Minnesota cities are instead immune from that type of directive. The ACLU’s SSCI and the ACLU of Minnesota filed an amicus brief arguing that cities are not immune from such a court order. But even if they can be, they shouldn’t be considered immune from claims brought under Minnesota’s antidiscrimination statute in light of the statute’s broad purpose and the Minnesota Constitution’s guarantee of a remedy for all injuries and wrongs. The outcome of the case could have serious implications for the enforcement of Minnesota’s civil rights laws.

The ACLU and ACLU of Alaska have filed an amicus in support of Tupe Smith, a woman born in American Samoa who now lives in Whittier, Alaska charged with falsely affirming that she was a U.S. citizen when she registered to vote. But Tupe Smith is not an “alien” under the law. People, like her, born in the U.S. territory of American Samoa are the only remaining individuals recognized as “non-citizen U.S. nationals,” a unique status that falls short of “citizen” but nonetheless recognizes that American Samoa has been part of the United States for over 125 years.   All evidence indicates that Ms. Smith believed that, as a non-citizen U.S. national, she was eligible to vote in local elections when she registered to vote. In fact, local election officials encouraged her to check the box labeled "U.S. citizen" when she registered, given the fact that there was no option for "U.S. national."   Our amicus brief urges Alaska’s Court of Appeals to dismiss Tupe Smith’s indictment because of well-settled principles that election-crime statutes should be construed to avoid punishing innocent mistakes. Separately, we warn that upholding a different view of the law would make Alaska an outlier among the states.

This case involves a state constitutional challenge to South Carolina’s 2022 congressional redistricting plan, which legislators admit was drawn to entrench a 6-1 Republican majority in the state’s federal delegation. Plaintiff the League of Women Voters of South Carolina has asked the state’s Supreme Court to conclude that the congressional map is an unlawful partisan gerrymander that violates the state constitution.