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 January 9, 2026
Ongoing
Updated December 10, 2025
Ongoing
Updated December 10, 2025
Ongoing
Updated November 22, 2025
Featured
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.
Missouri
Sep 2025
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
Aug 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 this dilutes the voting strength of Black residents in state Supreme Court elections, in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution.
Louisiana
Aug 2025
Voting Rights
Nairne v. Landry
Nairne v. Landry poses a challenge under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to Louisiana’s House and Senate legislative maps on behalf of plaintiff Black voters and Black voters across the state.
Ohio
Jul 2025
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region et al., v. Ohio Department of Health, et al.
The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Ohio, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the law firm WilmerHale, and Fanon Rucker of the Cochran Law Firm, on behalf of Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio, Preterm-Cleveland, Women’s Med Group Professional Corporation, Dr. Sharon Liner, and Julia Quinn, MSN, BSN, amended a complaint in an existing lawsuit against a ban on telehealth medication abortion services to bring new claims under the Ohio Reproductive Freedom Amendment, including additional challenges to other laws in Ohio that restrict access to medication abortion in the state.
All Cases
1,651 Court Cases
Colorado
May 2025
Immigrants' Rights
DBU v. Trump
Emergency lawsuit filed in federal court to again halt removals under the Alien Enemies Act for people within that court’s judicial district.
Explore case
Colorado
May 2025
Immigrants' Rights
DBU v. Trump
Emergency lawsuit filed in federal court to again halt removals under the Alien Enemies Act for people within that court’s judicial district.
North Carolina
May 2025
Voting Rights
Griffin v. North Carolina Board of Elections (Amicus)
This case arises from the November 2024 election for state supreme court justice in North Carolina. Incumbent State Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs defeated Court of Appeals Judge Jefferson Griffin, but Griffin has filed a petition seeking to invalidate more than 60,000 votes from the election. He argues that the state Board of Elections impermissibly allowed over 60,000 people to register without providing their driver’s licenses or social security numbers, and that the Board impermissibly allowed thousands of overseas voters to cast absentee ballots without photo identification. The petition has resulted in both federal and state litigation, and the ACLU has submitted amicus briefs in both venues. In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project and the ACLU of North Carolina filed an amicus brief explaining that the petition’s attempt to cancel tens of thousands of votes threatens democratic backsliding in North Carolina. Separately, in the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative and the ACLU of North Carolina submitted an amicus brief explaining that, even if the Board did make mistakes, cancelling votes as a consequence of those mistakes would violate the popular sovereignty provision of the North Carolina Constitution because voters relied on the Board to know how to register and vote.
Explore case
North Carolina
May 2025
Voting Rights
Griffin v. North Carolina Board of Elections (Amicus)
This case arises from the November 2024 election for state supreme court justice in North Carolina. Incumbent State Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs defeated Court of Appeals Judge Jefferson Griffin, but Griffin has filed a petition seeking to invalidate more than 60,000 votes from the election. He argues that the state Board of Elections impermissibly allowed over 60,000 people to register without providing their driver’s licenses or social security numbers, and that the Board impermissibly allowed thousands of overseas voters to cast absentee ballots without photo identification. The petition has resulted in both federal and state litigation, and the ACLU has submitted amicus briefs in both venues. In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project and the ACLU of North Carolina filed an amicus brief explaining that the petition’s attempt to cancel tens of thousands of votes threatens democratic backsliding in North Carolina. Separately, in the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative and the ACLU of North Carolina submitted an amicus brief explaining that, even if the Board did make mistakes, cancelling votes as a consequence of those mistakes would violate the popular sovereignty provision of the North Carolina Constitution because voters relied on the Board to know how to register and vote.
U.S. Supreme Court
May 2025
Civil Liberties
APHA v. NIH
APHA v. NIH is a legal challenge to the unprecedented and ideologically-driven purge of hundreds of biomedical research projects by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Years of research on a wide span of critical health issues has been abruptly cancelled, as have grants and programs designed to address the underrepresentation of racial minorities, women, and economically disadvantaged scientists in the biomedical field.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
May 2025
Civil Liberties
APHA v. NIH
APHA v. NIH is a legal challenge to the unprecedented and ideologically-driven purge of hundreds of biomedical research projects by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Years of research on a wide span of critical health issues has been abruptly cancelled, as have grants and programs designed to address the underrepresentation of racial minorities, women, and economically disadvantaged scientists in the biomedical field.
Georgia
May 2025
Criminal Law Reform
Smart Justice
Coronell, et al. v. Georgia
As a result of Georgia Senate Bill 63, thousands of people are being kept in jail pre-trial because they can’t afford to post bail, even when a judge believes the person should have been released until trial with no risk to the public. The ACLU’s Criminal Law Reform Project, along with ACLU-GA and the Southern Center for Human Rights, filed a class action lawsuit challenging SB63’s mandatory monetary bail provisions under the Georgia State Constitution.
Explore case
Georgia
May 2025
Criminal Law Reform
Smart Justice
Coronell, et al. v. Georgia
As a result of Georgia Senate Bill 63, thousands of people are being kept in jail pre-trial because they can’t afford to post bail, even when a judge believes the person should have been released until trial with no risk to the public. The ACLU’s Criminal Law Reform Project, along with ACLU-GA and the Southern Center for Human Rights, filed a class action lawsuit challenging SB63’s mandatory monetary bail provisions under the Georgia State Constitution.
Court Case
May 2025
Reproductive Freedom
Guam Society of OBGYNs v. Guerrero
Guam Society of OBGYNs v. Guerrero is a case originally brought by the ACLU and local attorneys on Guam challenging a 1990 total ban on abortion that imposes criminal penalties on patients, providers and those who speak about abortion. In August of 1990, a federal district court judge for the District of Guam granted the ACLU’s motion for summary judgment and entered a permanent injunction against the ban. After appeals were exhausted, the case was closed.
Over three decades later, on February 1, 2023, Guam Attorney General Douglas B. Moylan filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) motion to vacate the permanent injunction and dismiss the case with prejudice. The ACLU and Guam local counsel opposed the motion, on behalf of the only remaining original plaintiff, and proposed intervenors — the only two providers of abortion in Guam, and Guam-based reproductive justice organization Famalao’an Rights.
On March 24th, 2023, a federal district court denied the Attorney General’s request to vacate the permanent injunction. Attorney General Moylan then appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
On April 28, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order dismissing Attorney General Moylan’s appeal as moot, in light of an October 2023 decision by the Guam Supreme Court holding that the ban had been legislatively repealed. As a result, the ban remains permanently enjoined and abortion remains legal in Guam.
Explore case
Court Case
May 2025
Reproductive Freedom
Guam Society of OBGYNs v. Guerrero
Guam Society of OBGYNs v. Guerrero is a case originally brought by the ACLU and local attorneys on Guam challenging a 1990 total ban on abortion that imposes criminal penalties on patients, providers and those who speak about abortion. In August of 1990, a federal district court judge for the District of Guam granted the ACLU’s motion for summary judgment and entered a permanent injunction against the ban. After appeals were exhausted, the case was closed.
Over three decades later, on February 1, 2023, Guam Attorney General Douglas B. Moylan filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) motion to vacate the permanent injunction and dismiss the case with prejudice. The ACLU and Guam local counsel opposed the motion, on behalf of the only remaining original plaintiff, and proposed intervenors — the only two providers of abortion in Guam, and Guam-based reproductive justice organization Famalao’an Rights.
On March 24th, 2023, a federal district court denied the Attorney General’s request to vacate the permanent injunction. Attorney General Moylan then appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
On April 28, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order dismissing Attorney General Moylan’s appeal as moot, in light of an October 2023 decision by the Guam Supreme Court holding that the ban had been legislatively repealed. As a result, the ban remains permanently enjoined and abortion remains legal in Guam.