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 March 16, 2026
Ongoing
Updated March 12, 2026
Ongoing
Updated February 25, 2026
Ongoing
Updated February 18, 2026
Featured
Tennessee Supreme Court
Apr 2026
Capital Punishment
Tony Von Carruthers v. State of Tennessee
Tennessee plans to execute Tony Carruthers on May 21 even though they refuse to run a simple fingerprint comparison and DNA testing that could prove what Tony has been arguing for 30 years - that he is innocent of this crime and that Tennessee convicted and sentenced the wrong man to death.
Massachusetts
Apr 2026
Voting Rights
League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump
On March 31, 2026, President Trump issued a sweeping Executive Order titled "Ensuring Citizen Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections," seeking once again to seize control of election administration from Congress and the states. The Order directs federal agencies to compile lists of U.S. citizens and transmit them to states before every election, directs the U.S. Postal Service -- an independent agency established by Congress -- to create a list of "approved" mail voters, and instructs USPS to refuse to deliver ballots from voters not on that federally created list. If implemented, the Order would threaten the ability of millions of eligible citizens to cast their ballots, particularly military members, overseas citizens, the elderly, recently naturalized citizens, and voters with disabilities who rely on mail voting.
U.S. Supreme Court
Feb 2026
Immigrants' Rights
Barbara v. Donald J. Trump
President Trump is attempting to undermine the promise of birthright citizenship to children born on U.S. soil. But the ACLU and partners are fighting to protect the rights of citizens that are plainly stated in the Constitution, federal statute, and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court for more than a century. We’re arguing against the Trump administration in the Supreme Court and are confident we will win.
Missouri
Feb 2026
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
Dec 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 the current lines crack the Mississippi Delta and dilute the voting strength of Black Mississippians in state Supreme Court elections, in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
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.
All Cases
1,698 Court Cases
Utah
Apr 2026
Voting Rights
United States v. Henderson
On behalf of the League of Women Voters of Utah, the ACLU Voting Rights Project and the ACLU of Utah have filed a motion to intervene in a lawsuit over the federal government’s demand for Utah’s voter registration file. The Department of Justice is demanding the entire state list, including voters’ sensitive personal data, such as drivers’ license numbers and partial Social Security numbers.
Explore case
Utah
Apr 2026
Voting Rights
United States v. Henderson
On behalf of the League of Women Voters of Utah, the ACLU Voting Rights Project and the ACLU of Utah have filed a motion to intervene in a lawsuit over the federal government’s demand for Utah’s voter registration file. The Department of Justice is demanding the entire state list, including voters’ sensitive personal data, such as drivers’ license numbers and partial Social Security numbers.
South Carolina
Apr 2026
Voting Rights
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
Apr 2026
Voting Rights
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.
West Virginia
Apr 2026
Voting Rights
United States v. Warner
The United States has sued West Virginia, seeking access to the State's complete voter registration file, including fields that are not publicly available. The West Virginia Citizen Action Group (CAG), a non profit organization representing voters across the State, has moved to intervene. Represented by the ACLU, ACLU of West Virginia, the Campaign Legal Center, and the Brennan Center for Justice, CAG argues that its members' personal data and ability to participate in elections are directly at risk.
Explore case
West Virginia
Apr 2026
Voting Rights
United States v. Warner
The United States has sued West Virginia, seeking access to the State's complete voter registration file, including fields that are not publicly available. The West Virginia Citizen Action Group (CAG), a non profit organization representing voters across the State, has moved to intervene. Represented by the ACLU, ACLU of West Virginia, the Campaign Legal Center, and the Brennan Center for Justice, CAG argues that its members' personal data and ability to participate in elections are directly at risk.
Florida
Apr 2026
Voting Rights
UnidosUS v. Byrd
Florida passed a new law conditioning a citizen’s ability to register to vote, to update their voter registration, and to remain on the voter registration rolls on the production of specified forms of documentary proof of citizenship (“DPOC”). Thousands of Florida citizens do not have ready access to these documents, especially some of the state’s most vulnerable voters.
Explore case
Florida
Apr 2026
Voting Rights
UnidosUS v. Byrd
Florida passed a new law conditioning a citizen’s ability to register to vote, to update their voter registration, and to remain on the voter registration rolls on the production of specified forms of documentary proof of citizenship (“DPOC”). Thousands of Florida citizens do not have ready access to these documents, especially some of the state’s most vulnerable voters.
Alabama
Mar 2026
Reproductive Freedom
Oasis Family Birthing Center et. al. v. Alabama Department of Public Health
A group of midwives and doctors filed a lawsuit in state court challenging actions by the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH), which imposed a de facto ban on freestanding birth centers throughout Alabama. Birth centers provide midwifery care to low-risk pregnant patients, a model of care that is proven to be safe and beneficial to patients. Despite that, ADPH took actions that forced one center to abruptly shut down in 2023 despite a perfect safety record, and then passed onerous regulations that would require birth centers to meet hospital-like standards, preventing birth centers from operating in the state. After hearing oral argument in late September 2023, the Circuit Court of Montgomery County granted our request for a Preliminary Injunction on September 30, 2023, preventing ADPH from refusing to timely license freestanding birth centers that comply with nationally-recognized safety standards for birth centers while litigation continues.
In May 2025, the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court issued judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor blocking the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH) from regulating freestanding birth centers like hospitals and imposing onerous licensing rules that would have made it effectively impossible for these centers to provide evidence-based midwifery care in the state. The ruling ensured that plaintiffs Oasis Family Birthing Center in Birmingham and Alabama Birth Center in Huntsville, which had been safely operating for the past year, could continue providing midwifery care to pregnant Alabamians.
Defendants appealed this ruling in July 2025, and in January 2026, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed the lower court's decision, ruling that ADPH does have authority to require freestanding birth centers to be licensed and regulated as "hospitals." Plaintiffs are seeking further court review of the decision, and Alabama birth centers will continue operating and providing essential care to their patients while litigation is ongoing.
Explore case
Alabama
Mar 2026
Reproductive Freedom
Oasis Family Birthing Center et. al. v. Alabama Department of Public Health
A group of midwives and doctors filed a lawsuit in state court challenging actions by the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH), which imposed a de facto ban on freestanding birth centers throughout Alabama. Birth centers provide midwifery care to low-risk pregnant patients, a model of care that is proven to be safe and beneficial to patients. Despite that, ADPH took actions that forced one center to abruptly shut down in 2023 despite a perfect safety record, and then passed onerous regulations that would require birth centers to meet hospital-like standards, preventing birth centers from operating in the state. After hearing oral argument in late September 2023, the Circuit Court of Montgomery County granted our request for a Preliminary Injunction on September 30, 2023, preventing ADPH from refusing to timely license freestanding birth centers that comply with nationally-recognized safety standards for birth centers while litigation continues.
In May 2025, the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court issued judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor blocking the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH) from regulating freestanding birth centers like hospitals and imposing onerous licensing rules that would have made it effectively impossible for these centers to provide evidence-based midwifery care in the state. The ruling ensured that plaintiffs Oasis Family Birthing Center in Birmingham and Alabama Birth Center in Huntsville, which had been safely operating for the past year, could continue providing midwifery care to pregnant Alabamians.
Defendants appealed this ruling in July 2025, and in January 2026, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed the lower court's decision, ruling that ADPH does have authority to require freestanding birth centers to be licensed and regulated as "hospitals." Plaintiffs are seeking further court review of the decision, and Alabama birth centers will continue operating and providing essential care to their patients while litigation is ongoing.