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 May 4, 2026
Ongoing
Updated April 30, 2026
Ongoing
Updated March 16, 2026
Ongoing
Updated March 12, 2026
Featured
Court Case
May 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.
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.
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.
Missouri
Apr 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
All Cases
1,703 Court Cases
South Carolina
Mar 2023
Smart Justice
Racial Justice
Brown v. Lexington County, et al
This case is part of a nationwide fight against criminalization of poverty and, specifically, debtors' prisons. On June 1, 2017, the ACLU's Racial Justice Program, the ACLU of South Carolina, and Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC filed a federal lawsuit challenging the illegal arrest and incarceration of indigent people in Lexington County, South Carolina, for failure to pay fines and fees, without determining willfulness or providing assistance to counsel. Those targeted by this long-standing practice could avoid jail only if they paid the entire amount of outstanding court fines and fees up front and in full. Indigent people who were unable to pay were incarcerated for weeks to months without ever seeing a judge, having a court hearing, or receiving help from a lawyer. The result was one of the most draconian debtors’ prisons uncovered by the ACLU since 2010.
Explore case
South Carolina
Mar 2023
Smart Justice
Racial Justice
Brown v. Lexington County, et al
This case is part of a nationwide fight against criminalization of poverty and, specifically, debtors' prisons. On June 1, 2017, the ACLU's Racial Justice Program, the ACLU of South Carolina, and Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC filed a federal lawsuit challenging the illegal arrest and incarceration of indigent people in Lexington County, South Carolina, for failure to pay fines and fees, without determining willfulness or providing assistance to counsel. Those targeted by this long-standing practice could avoid jail only if they paid the entire amount of outstanding court fines and fees up front and in full. Indigent people who were unable to pay were incarcerated for weeks to months without ever seeing a judge, having a court hearing, or receiving help from a lawyer. The result was one of the most draconian debtors’ prisons uncovered by the ACLU since 2010.
U.S. Supreme Court
Mar 2023
Criminal Law Reform
Tyler v. Hennepin County
This case concerns whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the Fifth Amendment's takings clause.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Mar 2023
Criminal Law Reform
Tyler v. Hennepin County
This case concerns whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the Fifth Amendment's takings clause.
Court Case
Mar 2023
Immigrants' Rights
Brooks v. Woods
The American Civil Liberties Union, along with the ACLU of Florida, Southern Poverty Law Center, and Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, filed a federal lawsuit on Jan. 20, 2022, on behalf of Neville Brooks, a legal permanent resident from Jamaica who was detained by the Marion County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) on false suspicion of being in the U.S. unlawfully.
Explore case
Court Case
Mar 2023
Immigrants' Rights
Brooks v. Woods
The American Civil Liberties Union, along with the ACLU of Florida, Southern Poverty Law Center, and Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, filed a federal lawsuit on Jan. 20, 2022, on behalf of Neville Brooks, a legal permanent resident from Jamaica who was detained by the Marion County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) on false suspicion of being in the U.S. unlawfully.
U.S. Supreme Court
Mar 2023
Disability Rights
Health & Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski
The ACLU filed an amicus brief in Health & Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski to urge the Supreme Court to uphold private individuals’ right to sue state and local actors for violations of their federal civil rights under Section 1983.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Mar 2023
Disability Rights
Health & Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski
The ACLU filed an amicus brief in Health & Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski to urge the Supreme Court to uphold private individuals’ right to sue state and local actors for violations of their federal civil rights under Section 1983.
U.S. Supreme Court
Mar 2023
LGBTQ Rights
+2 Issues
303 Creative, Inc. v. Elenis
This case concerns whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel a business that chooses to serve the public to provide wedding website design services without discriminating against a same-sex couple violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Mar 2023
LGBTQ Rights
+2 Issues
303 Creative, Inc. v. Elenis
This case concerns whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel a business that chooses to serve the public to provide wedding website design services without discriminating against a same-sex couple violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.