Supreme Court Term 2025-2026

The National Education Association, the National Education Association-New Hampshire, and the Center for Black Educator Development filed a challenge in federal court against the U.S. Department of Education’s Feb. 14, 2025 “Dear Colleague Letter,” which announced that ED will treat diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts as unlawful and threatens to move swiftly to cut schools’ federal funding. ED’s actions violate due process and the First Amendment, as well as basic requirements for agency action.

Immigrants’ rights advocates sued the Trump administration to halt the transfer of immigrants from the United States to Guantánamo Bay in Cuba under President Trump’s recent order.

This case asks whether Georgia’s insanity defense statutes can be construed to contain an exception for cases where defendants allegedly triggered their own insanity by discontinuing their medication weeks before the alleged crimes. The State argues for such an exception, even though the text of the insanity defense statutes expressly pins the availability of the defenses to the defendant’s mental condition “at the time of” the alleged crimes. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Georgia, filed an amicus brief arguing that even if the State’s interpretation of the statutory text were reasonable, its argument should still be rejected because it contradicts the rule of lenity. The rule of lenity is a well-established canon of statutory construction requiring that, if a criminal statute can reasonably be interpreted in different ways, courts must adopt the interpretation most favorable to the accused.

When drawing its new maps, the Weld County Board of County Commissioners violated Colorado law imposing specific requirements meant to guarantee that county commission districts are drawn transparently and fairly, such that voters are empowered to elect responsive and accountable commissioners. A Colorado district court granted summary judgment to voter plaintiffs who challenged the maps, but the Board appealed the decision, arguing in part that voters lacked standing and a right of action to challenge the unlawful districts.