Supreme Court Term 2025-2026

Three New York families with adolescent transgender children and two transgender New Yorkers filed a class action lawsuit to protect patient identifying and sensitive health information from being turned over to the Department of Justice in response to federal grand jury subpoenas issued as part of a widespread effort to "end” necessary health care for transgender adolescents.

Becky is a student in West Virginia who is starting high school. Three years ago, as Becky was preparing to begin middle school, West Virginia passed a law categorically banning transgender girls from participating in all school sports. Becky loves being part of a team and wanted to be able to participate in cross-country and track and field with her friends. She sued, arguing that West Virginia's law violated the Constitution and Title IX as applied to her, especially because she has received medication from the onset of puberty and has never experienced any physiological changes associated with puberty for boys. As a result of an injunction issued by the lower courts, she has been able to participate in middle school cross-country and track and field for the past three years. Becky and her mother are represented by the ACLU, the ACLU of West Virginia, Lambda Legal and Cooley LLP.

Thousands of school districts across the country operate with nondiscrimination policies inclusive of their transgender students, including the legal right for these students to access facilities (bathrooms, locker rooms, etc.) consistent with their gender identity. These policies help protect transgender students from harassment, being isolated from their peers, and thrive in a learning environment that believes in their fundamental rights.

In 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that Keisy G.M., a lawful permanent resident who had been subjected to mandatory detention for 21 months, could not be detained any longer without a hearing on whether he poses a flight risk or danger. That decision was consistent with the vast majority of federal court rulings on the government’s practice of detaining people for prolonged periods of time without any individual hearings. The Trump administration appealed the ruling in January 2026 and on June 15 the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, setting oral argument for Oct. 13, 2026. The Trump administration is taking a radical position the government has not taken in the 30 years since this mandatory detention statute, 8 U.S.C. 1226(c), was enacted by Congress. It says immigrants like Mr. G.M. do not have a protected liberty interest in not being locked up without a hearing — at a time when the administration is pushing hard to detain and deport as many immigrants as possible, often locking people away in inhumane ICE detention centers, where deaths are already at record levels. On the government’s theory, it can lock up people under this mandatory detention statute for months, years, or even decades, without a hearing — as long as the removal case is still ongoing. The American Civil Liberties Union, New York Civil Liberties Union, MacArthur Justice Center, and Hecker Fink LLP are co-counsel. The groups argue the federal appeals court ruling is correct, and that the Constitution protects all of us, regardless of immigration status, from being locked away without due process.