Fighting Voter Suppression
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.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Learn About Fighting Voter Suppression
All Cases
86 Fighting Voter Suppression Cases
Maine
Dec 2025
Fighting Voter Suppression
United States v. Bellows (Amicus)
Representing the ACLU of Maine, the ACLU Voting Rights Project and the ACLU of Maine filed an amicus brief in a federal lawsuit over the federal government’s demand that Maine turn over its entire voter registration rolls, including with voters’ sensitive personal data such as drivers’ license numbers and partial social security numbers.
Explore case
Maine
Dec 2025
Fighting Voter Suppression
United States v. Bellows (Amicus)
Representing the ACLU of Maine, the ACLU Voting Rights Project and the ACLU of Maine filed an amicus brief in a federal lawsuit over the federal government’s demand that Maine turn over its entire voter registration rolls, including with voters’ sensitive personal data such as drivers’ license numbers and partial social security numbers.
Maryland
Dec 2025
Fighting Voter Suppression
United States v. DeMarinis
The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) sued Maryland demanding the release of its full, unredacted voter file, which includes the highly sensitive and personal data of every voter in the state. This suit appears to be part of DOJ’s effort to build a national voter database without congressional authorization, improperly question the validity of state voter rolls, and intimidate eligible voters in Maryland and around the country.
Explore case
Maryland
Dec 2025
Fighting Voter Suppression
United States v. DeMarinis
The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) sued Maryland demanding the release of its full, unredacted voter file, which includes the highly sensitive and personal data of every voter in the state. This suit appears to be part of DOJ’s effort to build a national voter database without congressional authorization, improperly question the validity of state voter rolls, and intimidate eligible voters in Maryland and around the country.
Rhode Island
Dec 2025
Fighting Voter Suppression
United States v. Amore
The Department of Justice (DOJ) sued the State of Rhode Island, seeking private, confidential voter data. DOJ’s efforts appear to be part of an effort to build a national voter database without congressional authorization and to improperly question the validity of state voter rolls.
Explore case
Rhode Island
Dec 2025
Fighting Voter Suppression
United States v. Amore
The Department of Justice (DOJ) sued the State of Rhode Island, seeking private, confidential voter data. DOJ’s efforts appear to be part of an effort to build a national voter database without congressional authorization and to improperly question the validity of state voter rolls.
South Carolina
Dec 2025
Fighting Voter Suppression
NAACP South Carolina State Conference v. Wilson
All voters with disabilities have the right to receive assistance voting from a person of their choice. South Carolina prohibits some voters with disabilities from receiving assistance and limits who voters can rely on for assistance. Voters with disabilities and the NAACP South Carolina State Conference sued to challenge those laws under Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act and protect disabled voters’ right to assistance.
Explore case
South Carolina
Dec 2025
Fighting Voter Suppression
NAACP South Carolina State Conference v. Wilson
All voters with disabilities have the right to receive assistance voting from a person of their choice. South Carolina prohibits some voters with disabilities from receiving assistance and limits who voters can rely on for assistance. Voters with disabilities and the NAACP South Carolina State Conference sued to challenge those laws under Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act and protect disabled voters’ right to assistance.
New Hampshire
Dec 2025
Fighting Voter Suppression
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.
Explore case
New Hampshire
Dec 2025
Fighting Voter Suppression
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.