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 12, 2026
Ongoing
Updated February 25, 2026
Ongoing
Updated February 18, 2026
Ongoing
Updated January 26, 2026
Featured
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.
Missouri
Feb 2026
Voting Rights
Missouri v. U.S. Department of Commerce
A coalition of civil rights and immigrant-rights organizations has moved to intervene as defendants in a lawsuit that threatens to dismantle the Constitution’s long-standing requirement that the decennial census count all people living in the United States. Missouri asks the court to exclude undocumented immigrants and people living in the country on temporary visas from the census count used to determine congressional representation—an unprecedented move that would upend more than two centuries of constitutional practice.
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
Dec 2025
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.
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.
All Cases
1,684 Court Cases
Arizona
Mar 2024
Voting Rights
Petersen, et al. v. Fontes (Amicus)
Can Arizona bypass the procedural safeguards of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and remove voters from the voter rolls immediately based only on indirect information about these voters’ responses regarding their residency in the separate context of juror questionnaires?
Explore case
Arizona
Mar 2024
Voting Rights
Petersen, et al. v. Fontes (Amicus)
Can Arizona bypass the procedural safeguards of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and remove voters from the voter rolls immediately based only on indirect information about these voters’ responses regarding their residency in the separate context of juror questionnaires?
Washington, D.C.
Feb 2024
National Security
Human Rights
ACLU v. DOD – FOIA Case Seeking Biden Administration’s Presidential Policy Memorandum
In October 2022, the Biden administration confirmed the existence of the White House’s latest set of policy rules governing the United States’ use of lethal force outside of recognized battlefields abroad. These new rules are known as the “Presidential Policy Memorandum (PPM).” The administration made the partially-redacted PPM public in response to the latest in a series of ACLU lawsuits to force transparency about the U.S. government’s secretive, unlawful, and controversial use of lethal force abroad, including through the use of drones.
Explore case
Washington, D.C.
Feb 2024
National Security
Human Rights
ACLU v. DOD – FOIA Case Seeking Biden Administration’s Presidential Policy Memorandum
In October 2022, the Biden administration confirmed the existence of the White House’s latest set of policy rules governing the United States’ use of lethal force outside of recognized battlefields abroad. These new rules are known as the “Presidential Policy Memorandum (PPM).” The administration made the partially-redacted PPM public in response to the latest in a series of ACLU lawsuits to force transparency about the U.S. government’s secretive, unlawful, and controversial use of lethal force abroad, including through the use of drones.
Kansas
Feb 2024
Capital Punishment
Kansas v. Kyle Young
If the death penalty is racist, arbitrary and serves no valid penological purpose, does it violate the Kansas Constitution?
The ACLU, together with the ACLU of Kansas and law firm Hogan Lovells US LLP, challenged the Kansas death penalty statute under the Kansas Constitution and United States Constitution in the case of Kansas v. Kyle Young. Mr. Young is a Black man who faced a capital trial in Sedgwick County, Kansas. Prosecutors sought a death sentence. The Sedgwick County District Court held an unprecedented evidentiary hearing in February 2023.
Explore case
Kansas
Feb 2024
Capital Punishment
Kansas v. Kyle Young
If the death penalty is racist, arbitrary and serves no valid penological purpose, does it violate the Kansas Constitution?
The ACLU, together with the ACLU of Kansas and law firm Hogan Lovells US LLP, challenged the Kansas death penalty statute under the Kansas Constitution and United States Constitution in the case of Kansas v. Kyle Young. Mr. Young is a Black man who faced a capital trial in Sedgwick County, Kansas. Prosecutors sought a death sentence. The Sedgwick County District Court held an unprecedented evidentiary hearing in February 2023.
Iowa
Feb 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Racial Justice
State of Iowa v. Lawrence George Canady III
In this case, the Iowa Supreme Court considered when rap lyrics are admissible evidence in criminal trials. The State sought further review of a court of appeals decision which reversed the defendant's criminal convictions and remanded for a trial based on errors in the admission of evidence. Together with the Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project and the ACLU of Iowa, the State Supreme Court Initiative filed an amicus brief arguing that such evidence should usually be excluded because it is rarely probative and yet creates a high risk of prejudice to the defendant. The Iowa Supreme Court ultimately reversed the Court of Appeals decision, but for narrow and fact-specific reasons. And the Iowa Supreme Court acknowledged that, in cases not involving the peculiar facts of Canady's case, other courts had expressed concerns about the risk that a jury will unfairly use rap lyrics and music as evidence of a defendant's guilt.
Explore case
Iowa
Feb 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Racial Justice
State of Iowa v. Lawrence George Canady III
In this case, the Iowa Supreme Court considered when rap lyrics are admissible evidence in criminal trials. The State sought further review of a court of appeals decision which reversed the defendant's criminal convictions and remanded for a trial based on errors in the admission of evidence. Together with the Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project and the ACLU of Iowa, the State Supreme Court Initiative filed an amicus brief arguing that such evidence should usually be excluded because it is rarely probative and yet creates a high risk of prejudice to the defendant. The Iowa Supreme Court ultimately reversed the Court of Appeals decision, but for narrow and fact-specific reasons. And the Iowa Supreme Court acknowledged that, in cases not involving the peculiar facts of Canady's case, other courts had expressed concerns about the risk that a jury will unfairly use rap lyrics and music as evidence of a defendant's guilt.
Georgia Supreme Court
Feb 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Tatum v. State
This case at the Georgia Supreme Court involves the “independent source” doctrine, an exception to the exclusionary rule providing that evidence that is acquired through means genuinely independent of a prior unlawful search or seizure may be accepted by the court. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Georgia, filed an amicus brief arguing that the independent source doctrine does not apply in this case because the police relied on information acquired from a prior, illegal search when they applied for a warrant to search the defendant’s cell phone. The Court’s opinion vacated Tatum’s conviction and remanded to allow the trial court to determine whether the state’s decision to seek the search warrant was “prompted” by the prior unlawful search.
Explore case
Georgia Supreme Court
Feb 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Tatum v. State
This case at the Georgia Supreme Court involves the “independent source” doctrine, an exception to the exclusionary rule providing that evidence that is acquired through means genuinely independent of a prior unlawful search or seizure may be accepted by the court. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Georgia, filed an amicus brief arguing that the independent source doctrine does not apply in this case because the police relied on information acquired from a prior, illegal search when they applied for a warrant to search the defendant’s cell phone. The Court’s opinion vacated Tatum’s conviction and remanded to allow the trial court to determine whether the state’s decision to seek the search warrant was “prompted” by the prior unlawful search.