Arkansas
learn about our work in Arkansas
learn about our work in Arkansas
All Cases
14 Arkansas Cases
Arkansas
Sep 2023

Brandt et al v. Rutledge et al
Four families of transgender youth and two doctors have challenged an Arkansas law that would prohibit healthcare professionals from providing or even referring transgender young people for medically necessary health care. The law would also bar any state funds or insurance coverage for gender-affirming health care for transgender people under 18, and it would allow private insurers to refuse to cover gender-affirming care for people of any age. The lawsuit, filed in federal court, alleges that House Bill 1570 is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Status: Ongoing
View case

Arkansas
LGBTQ Rights
Brandt et al v. Rutledge et al
Four families of transgender youth and two doctors have challenged an Arkansas law that would prohibit healthcare professionals from providing or even referring transgender young people for medically necessary health care. The law would also bar any state funds or insurance coverage for gender-affirming health care for transgender people under 18, and it would allow private insurers to refuse to cover gender-affirming care for people of any age. The lawsuit, filed in federal court, alleges that House Bill 1570 is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Sep 2023
Status: Ongoing
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Mar 2023

Jones v. Hendrix
The issue in the case is whether federal prisoners who could not — because established law stood firmly against them — and therefore did not challenge their convictions can challenge those convictions when the Supreme Court later overrules the prior precedent upon which their convictions were based, making them legally innocent of the crime of conviction.
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case

U.S. Supreme Court
Criminal Law Reform
Jones v. Hendrix
The issue in the case is whether federal prisoners who could not — because established law stood firmly against them — and therefore did not challenge their convictions can challenge those convictions when the Supreme Court later overrules the prior precedent upon which their convictions were based, making them legally innocent of the crime of conviction.
Mar 2023
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
Arkansas
Sep 2022

Hopkins v. Jegley – Challenge to Arkansas Law Restricting Abortion Rights
On July 28, 2017, the U.S. District Court granted plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, thereby blocking enforcement of four challenged Arkansas laws restricting abortion care in the state until the litigation is resolved.
Status: Ongoing
View case

Arkansas
Reproductive Freedom
Hopkins v. Jegley – Challenge to Arkansas Law Restricting Abortion Rights
On July 28, 2017, the U.S. District Court granted plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, thereby blocking enforcement of four challenged Arkansas laws restricting abortion care in the state until the litigation is resolved.
Sep 2022
Status: Ongoing
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2021

Little Rock Family Planning Services, et al., v. Rutledge, et al.
In 2019, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit challenging three Arkansas laws that sought to severely restrict abortion rights in the state. These laws would ban abortion care starting at 18 weeks of pregnancy, ban abortion based on the woman’s reason for her decision, and prohibit qualified physicians from continuing to safely provide abortion care for no conceivable health or medical purpose, thereby imposing an unconstitutional burden on patients seeking abortion care in the state. In 2019, we successfully obtained a preliminary injunction, blocking these laws from taking effect. In January of 2021 the Eighth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction of the 18-week ban and ban based on a patient’s reason for seeking care.
Status: Ongoing
View case

U.S. Supreme Court
Reproductive Freedom
Little Rock Family Planning Services, et al., v. Rutledge, et al.
In 2019, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit challenging three Arkansas laws that sought to severely restrict abortion rights in the state. These laws would ban abortion care starting at 18 weeks of pregnancy, ban abortion based on the woman’s reason for her decision, and prohibit qualified physicians from continuing to safely provide abortion care for no conceivable health or medical purpose, thereby imposing an unconstitutional burden on patients seeking abortion care in the state. In 2019, we successfully obtained a preliminary injunction, blocking these laws from taking effect. In January of 2021 the Eighth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction of the 18-week ban and ban based on a patient’s reason for seeking care.
Jun 2021
Status: Ongoing
View case
Stay informed about our latest work in the courts
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU's privacy policy.