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.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Learn About Racial Justice
Featured
Arizona
Oct 2023
Racial Justice
Criminal Law Reform
Fund for Empowerment v. Phoenix, City of
Fund for Empowerment is a challenge to the City of Phoenix’s practice of conducting sweeps of encampments without notice, issuing citations to unsheltered people for camping and sleeping on public property when they have no place else to go, and confiscating and destroying their property without notice or process.
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2023
Racial Justice
Women's Rights
United States v. Rahimi
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face.
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2023
Racial Justice
Muldrow v. City of St. Louis
Do employees claiming that they have been denied a transfer because of their race have to demonstrate in addition that the transfer caused a significant material disadvantage?
Court Case
Jun 2020
Racial Justice
Defy Ventures, Inc. v. Small Business Administration
Suing the Trump administration to lift its unlawful exclusion of businesses owned by people with criminal records from being eligible for Paycheck Protection Act funds
California
Mar 2019
Racial Justice
MediaJustice, et al. v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al.
On March 21, 2019, the American Civil Liberties Union and MediaJustice, formerly known as “Center for Media Justice,” filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking records about FBI targeting of Black activists. The lawsuit enforces the ACLU and MediaJustice’s right to information about a 2017 FBI Intelligence Assessment that asserts, without evidence, that a group of so-called “Black Identity Extremists” poses a threat of domestic terrorism. The Intelligence Assessment was widely disseminated to law enforcement agencies nationwide, raising public concern about government surveillance of Black people and Black-led organizations based on anti-Black stereotypes and First Amendment protected activities.
Court Case
Aug 2015
Racial Justice
Disability Rights
S.R. v. Kenton County Sheriff's Office
A deputy sheriff shackled two elementary school children who have disabilities, causing them pain and trauma, according to a federal lawsuit filed today by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Children’s Law Center, and Dinsmore & Shohl.
All Cases
131 Racial Justice Cases
California
Oct 2026
Racial Justice
+2 Issues
Salles, et al. v. National Institutes of Health, et al.
Salles, et al. v. National Institutes of Health, et al. is a class action lawsuit challenging the censorship and termination of federally funded research by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). While ongoing litigation in APHA v. NIH successfully resulted in the reinstatement of hundreds of grants, NIH’s current policies continue to target viewpoints it opposes, threatening research because the government dislikes what it thinks the researchers believe or are likely to say, and continue to violate governing statutes and regulations. This is stymieing critical public health research, particularly related to climate change, the starkest health disparities including those faced by communities of color and LGBTQ+ populations, and other areas.
Explore case
California
Oct 2026
Racial Justice
+2 Issues
Salles, et al. v. National Institutes of Health, et al.
Salles, et al. v. National Institutes of Health, et al. is a class action lawsuit challenging the censorship and termination of federally funded research by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). While ongoing litigation in APHA v. NIH successfully resulted in the reinstatement of hundreds of grants, NIH’s current policies continue to target viewpoints it opposes, threatening research because the government dislikes what it thinks the researchers believe or are likely to say, and continue to violate governing statutes and regulations. This is stymieing critical public health research, particularly related to climate change, the starkest health disparities including those faced by communities of color and LGBTQ+ populations, and other areas.
Washington, D.C.
Oct 2026
Racial Justice
AAER v. HSF
The Hispanic Scholarship Fund’s (HSF) ability to award scholarships to Hispanic students has been challenged by the American Alliance for Equal Rights. The plaintiff alleges that HSF’s scholarships (1) constitute a contract between HSF and the awardees and (2) discriminate against qualified, non-Hispanic students. We represent HSF to defend their right to make higher education accessible to students by supporting them with charitable resources and opportunities.
Explore case
Washington, D.C.
Oct 2026
Racial Justice
AAER v. HSF
The Hispanic Scholarship Fund’s (HSF) ability to award scholarships to Hispanic students has been challenged by the American Alliance for Equal Rights. The plaintiff alleges that HSF’s scholarships (1) constitute a contract between HSF and the awardees and (2) discriminate against qualified, non-Hispanic students. We represent HSF to defend their right to make higher education accessible to students by supporting them with charitable resources and opportunities.
Court Case
Oct 2026
Racial Justice
Free Speech
Pernell v. Lamb
On Thursday, August 18, 2022 the ACLU, ACLU of Florida, Legal Defense Fund and Ballard Spahr filed a lawsuit challenging Florida’s HB7 (aka the Stop W.O.K.E. Act) on behalf of a group of Florida educators and students in higher education.
Explore case
Court Case
Oct 2026
Racial Justice
Free Speech
Pernell v. Lamb
On Thursday, August 18, 2022 the ACLU, ACLU of Florida, Legal Defense Fund and Ballard Spahr filed a lawsuit challenging Florida’s HB7 (aka the Stop W.O.K.E. Act) on behalf of a group of Florida educators and students in higher education.
Alaska
Sep 2026
Racial Justice
Voting Rights
Smith v. State of Alaska (Amicus)
The ACLU and ACLU of Alaska have filed an amicus in support of Tupe Smith, a woman born in American Samoa who now lives in Whittier, Alaska charged with falsely affirming that she was a U.S. citizen when she registered to vote. But Tupe Smith is not an “alien” under the law. People, like her, born in the U.S. territory of American Samoa are the only remaining individuals recognized as “non-citizen U.S. nationals,” a unique status that falls short of “citizen” but nonetheless recognizes that American Samoa has been part of the United States for over 125 years.
All evidence indicates that Ms. Smith believed that, as a non-citizen U.S. national, she was eligible to vote in local elections when she registered to vote. In fact, local election officials encouraged her to check the box labeled “U.S. citizen” when she registered, given the fact that there was no option for “U.S. national.”
Our amicus brief urges Alaska’s Court of Appeals to dismiss Tupe Smith’s indictment because of well-settled principles that election-crime statutes should be construed to avoid punishing innocent mistakes. Separately, we warn that upholding a different view of the law would make Alaska an outlier among the states.
Explore case
Alaska
Sep 2026
Racial Justice
Voting Rights
Smith v. State of Alaska (Amicus)
The ACLU and ACLU of Alaska have filed an amicus in support of Tupe Smith, a woman born in American Samoa who now lives in Whittier, Alaska charged with falsely affirming that she was a U.S. citizen when she registered to vote. But Tupe Smith is not an “alien” under the law. People, like her, born in the U.S. territory of American Samoa are the only remaining individuals recognized as “non-citizen U.S. nationals,” a unique status that falls short of “citizen” but nonetheless recognizes that American Samoa has been part of the United States for over 125 years.
All evidence indicates that Ms. Smith believed that, as a non-citizen U.S. national, she was eligible to vote in local elections when she registered to vote. In fact, local election officials encouraged her to check the box labeled “U.S. citizen” when she registered, given the fact that there was no option for “U.S. national.”
Our amicus brief urges Alaska’s Court of Appeals to dismiss Tupe Smith’s indictment because of well-settled principles that election-crime statutes should be construed to avoid punishing innocent mistakes. Separately, we warn that upholding a different view of the law would make Alaska an outlier among the states.
Montana Supreme Court
Aug 2026
Racial Justice
+2 Issues
Held v. State
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
Racial Justice
+2 Issues
Held v. State
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.