Supreme Court Term 2025-2026
We’re breaking down the cases we've asked the court to consider this term.
Latest Case Updates
Updated September 10, 2026
Ongoing
Updated September 8, 2026
Ongoing
Updated August 31, 2026
Ongoing
Updated August 31, 2026
Featured
Florida
Sep 2026
National Security
+2 Issues
CAIR-Foundation, Inc and CAIR Florida, Inc. v. DeSantis et al.
The ACLU, the ACLU of Florida, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and their partners represent CAIR and CAIR-Florida in two federal lawsuits challenging Governor DeSantis’s unconstitutional and baseless designation of the nonprofits as “terrorist.” The lawsuits allege violations of CAIR and CAIR-Florida’s rights under the First Amendment and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Massachusetts
Sep 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.
Court Case
Sep 2026
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.
Oregon Supreme Court
Aug 2026
LGBTQ Rights
Prisoners' Rights
Zyst v. Miller
Following the Oregon Department of Corrections’ unconstitutional treatment of a transgender prisoner, a habeas court ordered her removal from segregated housing, an individualized gender-affirming care assessment, a psychiatric evaluation, and identification of an appropriate cellmate. However, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the psychiatric-evaluation and cellmate orders, finding them “too attenuated” to qualify as habeas relief. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Oregon, joined an amicus brief by the law firm Sugerman Dahab arguing that habeas courts have broad discretion to remedy violations and resulting harms. The brief explains that the Court of Appeals’ “close connection” test unduly constricts habeas relief, and which should be construed to encompass not only the need to halt ongoing constitutional violations, but also the need to mitigate various harms that may arise from those violations.
Arizona
Jul 2026
Prisoners' Rights
Jensen v. Thornell
UPDATE: On July 17, 2026, U.S. District Judge Roslyn O. Silver issued an order formally appointing a receiver to assume control and management of health care provided to more than 25,000 people incarcerated in Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry (ADCRR) prisons, in a long-running lawsuit against the state prison system brought by the Prison Law Office, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of Arizona, and Disability Rights Arizona. More details here.
New Hampshire
Jul 2026
Voting Rights
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.
U.S. Supreme Court
May 2026
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.
U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 2026
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.
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.
All Cases
1,750 Court Cases
Massachusetts
Aug 2026
Voting Rights
United States v. Galvin
The Department of Justice (DOJ) sued the Massachusetts Secretary of State Galvin, 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
Massachusetts
Aug 2026
Voting Rights
United States v. Galvin
The Department of Justice (DOJ) sued the Massachusetts Secretary of State Galvin, 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.
U.S. Supreme Court
Aug 2026
Religious Liberty
Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District
A group of Texas families are challenging a 2025 Texas law, S.B. 10, that requires public schools to conspicuously display a state-selected, Protestant version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. Nearly 50 years ago, the Supreme Court overturned a similar Kentucky law because it violated the First Amendment. After an appellate court ruled that S.B. 10 does not violate the Constitution, the Christian, Jewish, Hindu, and nonreligious families involved in the lawsuit are asking the Supreme Court to hear their case and to block the law. The First Amendment prohibits states from forcing scripture on public-school students, and it guarantees families — not politicians or the government — the right to guide children’s religious belief and education.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Aug 2026
Religious Liberty
Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District
A group of Texas families are challenging a 2025 Texas law, S.B. 10, that requires public schools to conspicuously display a state-selected, Protestant version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. Nearly 50 years ago, the Supreme Court overturned a similar Kentucky law because it violated the First Amendment. After an appellate court ruled that S.B. 10 does not violate the Constitution, the Christian, Jewish, Hindu, and nonreligious families involved in the lawsuit are asking the Supreme Court to hear their case and to block the law. The First Amendment prohibits states from forcing scripture on public-school students, and it guarantees families — not politicians or the government — the right to guide children’s religious belief and education.
U.S. Supreme Court
Aug 2026
Religious Liberty
Cribbs Ringer v. Comal Independent School District
A group of Texas families are challenging a 2025 Texas law, S.B. 10, that requires public schools to conspicuously display a state-selected, Protestant version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. Nearly 50 years ago, the Supreme Court overturned a similar Kentucky law because it violated the First Amendment. After an appellate court ruled that S.B. 10 does not violate the Constitution, the Baha’i, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, and nonreligious families involved in the lawsuit are asking the Supreme Court to hear their case and to block the law. The First Amendment prohibits states from forcing scripture on public-school students, and it guarantees families — not politicians or the government —the right to guide children’s religious belief and education.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Aug 2026
Religious Liberty
Cribbs Ringer v. Comal Independent School District
A group of Texas families are challenging a 2025 Texas law, S.B. 10, that requires public schools to conspicuously display a state-selected, Protestant version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. Nearly 50 years ago, the Supreme Court overturned a similar Kentucky law because it violated the First Amendment. After an appellate court ruled that S.B. 10 does not violate the Constitution, the Baha’i, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, and nonreligious families involved in the lawsuit are asking the Supreme Court to hear their case and to block the law. The First Amendment prohibits states from forcing scripture on public-school students, and it guarantees families — not politicians or the government —the right to guide children’s religious belief and education.
Texas
Aug 2026
Immigrants' Rights
WMM 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
Texas
Aug 2026
Immigrants' Rights
WMM 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.
Montana Supreme Court
Aug 2026
Juvenile Justice
+2 Issues
Held v. Montana
In 2020, in Held v. Montana, sixteen youth plaintiffs challenged Montana’s energy policy as violating the Montana Constitution. After several years of litigation, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed that Montanans have a constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment.
In January 2026, Montana youth filed a second case, Held II, to enforce the Court’s decision after the Legislature enacted new laws that the plaintiffs contend undermine the constitutional protections recognized in the Court’s earlier decision and permit continued approval of fossil fuel projects that worsen climate harms.
The State moved to transfer Held II to a different district under SB 97, a law that gives the government a special right to forum shop in cases challenging new laws and makes it significantly harder for Montanans to pursue such challenges. SB 97 thus raises serious access-to-justice concerns in this case and any others in which people are seeking relief from allegedly unconstitutional laws.
Explore case
Montana Supreme Court
Aug 2026
Juvenile Justice
+2 Issues
Held v. Montana
In 2020, in Held v. Montana, sixteen youth plaintiffs challenged Montana’s energy policy as violating the Montana Constitution. After several years of litigation, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed that Montanans have a constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment.
In January 2026, Montana youth filed a second case, Held II, to enforce the Court’s decision after the Legislature enacted new laws that the plaintiffs contend undermine the constitutional protections recognized in the Court’s earlier decision and permit continued approval of fossil fuel projects that worsen climate harms.
The State moved to transfer Held II to a different district under SB 97, a law that gives the government a special right to forum shop in cases challenging new laws and makes it significantly harder for Montanans to pursue such challenges. SB 97 thus raises serious access-to-justice concerns in this case and any others in which people are seeking relief from allegedly unconstitutional laws.