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
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.
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
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
1,686 Court Cases
U.S. Supreme Court
Feb 2023
Privacy & Technology
+2 Issues
Twitter, Inc., v. Taamneh
The Supreme Court will decide whether a social media or other platform can be liable for “aiding and abetting” a terrorist attack merely because it failed to adequately block content valorizing terrorism, even where the platform has policies barring terrorist content.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Feb 2023
Privacy & Technology
+2 Issues
Twitter, Inc., v. Taamneh
The Supreme Court will decide whether a social media or other platform can be liable for “aiding and abetting” a terrorist attack merely because it failed to adequately block content valorizing terrorism, even where the platform has policies barring terrorist content.
U.S. Supreme Court
Feb 2023
Voting Rights
Huffman v. Neiman
This case asks whether the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution bars the Ohio state court from enforcing redistricting requirements in the Ohio constitution that prohibit partisan gerrymandering.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Feb 2023
Voting Rights
Huffman v. Neiman
This case asks whether the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution bars the Ohio state court from enforcing redistricting requirements in the Ohio constitution that prohibit partisan gerrymandering.
Court Case
Feb 2023
Free Speech
C.K.–W. v. Wentzville R-IV School District
The American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, joined by the National ACLU, filed a lawsuit challenging a school district's removal of eight critically-acclaimed library books that are by and about people of color, LGBTQ+ people, and other marginalized groups, as well as its policy requiring automatic removal of every book that any student, parent, or guardian formally objects to, regardless of the basis for or merits of that objection.
Explore case
Court Case
Feb 2023
Free Speech
C.K.–W. v. Wentzville R-IV School District
The American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, joined by the National ACLU, filed a lawsuit challenging a school district's removal of eight critically-acclaimed library books that are by and about people of color, LGBTQ+ people, and other marginalized groups, as well as its policy requiring automatic removal of every book that any student, parent, or guardian formally objects to, regardless of the basis for or merits of that objection.
Virginia
Feb 2023
LGBTQ Rights
+2 Issues
Vlaming v. West Point School District
In September of 2019, Peter Vlaming, a French teacher at West Point High School, refused to address a transgender boy in his class with he/him pronouns. Instead, the teacher avoided using pronouns when addressing the student, while continuing to use gendered pronouns when addressing everyone else. After several warnings, the school district told the teacher he needed to address the student with male pronouns (the same way he addressed other boys) or he would be fired. The teacher refused; the school district fired him, and Vlaming, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, filed a suit in state court arguing that the school district violated his free speech and free exercise rights under the Virginia Constitution and Virginia’s RFRA.
Explore case
Virginia
Feb 2023
LGBTQ Rights
+2 Issues
Vlaming v. West Point School District
In September of 2019, Peter Vlaming, a French teacher at West Point High School, refused to address a transgender boy in his class with he/him pronouns. Instead, the teacher avoided using pronouns when addressing the student, while continuing to use gendered pronouns when addressing everyone else. After several warnings, the school district told the teacher he needed to address the student with male pronouns (the same way he addressed other boys) or he would be fired. The teacher refused; the school district fired him, and Vlaming, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, filed a suit in state court arguing that the school district violated his free speech and free exercise rights under the Virginia Constitution and Virginia’s RFRA.
South Carolina
Feb 2023
Juvenile Justice
+2 Issues
CYAP v. Wilson
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit challenging South Carolina’s “disturbing schools” and “disorderly conduct” laws. The laws allowed students in school to be criminally charged for normal adolescent behaviors including loitering, cursing, or undefined “obnoxious” actions on school grounds and encouraged discriminatory enforcement against Black students and students with disabilities. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court ruling that enforcing these laws against students was unconstitutional, affirming that subjecting students to criminal penalties under such vague rules interferes with their education and their future, and produces stark racial disparities. This decision should be instructive to the many school districts across the country where students continue to be charged with ‘disorderly conduct’ and similar vague crimes.
Explore case
South Carolina
Feb 2023
Juvenile Justice
+2 Issues
CYAP v. Wilson
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit challenging South Carolina’s “disturbing schools” and “disorderly conduct” laws. The laws allowed students in school to be criminally charged for normal adolescent behaviors including loitering, cursing, or undefined “obnoxious” actions on school grounds and encouraged discriminatory enforcement against Black students and students with disabilities. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court ruling that enforcing these laws against students was unconstitutional, affirming that subjecting students to criminal penalties under such vague rules interferes with their education and their future, and produces stark racial disparities. This decision should be instructive to the many school districts across the country where students continue to be charged with ‘disorderly conduct’ and similar vague crimes.