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 19, 2026
Ongoing
Updated May 4, 2026
Ongoing
Updated April 30, 2026
Ongoing
Updated March 16, 2026
Featured
U.S. Supreme Court
May 2026
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.
Massachusetts
May 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.
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.
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.
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
1,710 Court Cases
New York
May 2026
Immigrants' Rights
Barco Mercado v. Mullin
An individual detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sued the Trump administration over lack of access to legal counsel and unsafe conditions at 26 Federal Plaza, a federal building in New York where more than 100 people have been confined, sometimes for weeks, to a temporary holding facility operated by ICE. The holding facility is only meant to temporarily hold people who are immigrants for a matter of hours as they are processed before release or transported to a longer-term detention facility. It has no beds, showers, or adequate medical support. However, as ICE has increased its arrests of immigrants, it has packed people into the holding cells at 26 Federal Plaza, where they are detained for extended periods of time, often for a week or more. Detained individuals have estimated that ICE has packed between 70 to 90 people into a room of approximately 215 square feet.
Explore case
New York
May 2026
Immigrants' Rights
Barco Mercado v. Mullin
An individual detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sued the Trump administration over lack of access to legal counsel and unsafe conditions at 26 Federal Plaza, a federal building in New York where more than 100 people have been confined, sometimes for weeks, to a temporary holding facility operated by ICE. The holding facility is only meant to temporarily hold people who are immigrants for a matter of hours as they are processed before release or transported to a longer-term detention facility. It has no beds, showers, or adequate medical support. However, as ICE has increased its arrests of immigrants, it has packed people into the holding cells at 26 Federal Plaza, where they are detained for extended periods of time, often for a week or more. Detained individuals have estimated that ICE has packed between 70 to 90 people into a room of approximately 215 square feet.
Alabama
May 2026
Reproductive Freedom
Oasis Family Birthing Center et. al. v. Alabama Department of Public Health
A group of midwives and doctors filed a lawsuit in state court challenging actions by the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH), which imposed a de facto ban on freestanding birth centers throughout Alabama. Birth centers provide midwifery care to low-risk pregnant patients, a model of care that is proven to be safe and beneficial to patients. Despite that, ADPH took actions that forced one center to abruptly shut down in 2023 despite a perfect safety record, and then passed onerous regulations that would require birth centers to meet hospital-like standards, preventing birth centers from operating in the state. After hearing oral argument in late September 2023, the Circuit Court of Montgomery County granted our request for a Preliminary Injunction on September 30, 2023, preventing ADPH from refusing to timely license freestanding birth centers that comply with nationally-recognized safety standards for birth centers while litigation continues.
In May 2025, the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court issued judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor on Plaintiffs’ threshold claim that freestanding birth centers are not “hospitals” under Alabama law and, therefore, the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH) has no authority to require them to be licensed as such.
However, on appeal in January 2026, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed the lower court's decision, and in May 2026, the Alabama Supreme Court declined the Plaintiffs’ request for further review, leaving the Civil Appeals Court’s decision in place.
The case now returns to the Circuit Court of Montgomery County where Plaintiffs will continue litigating other claims arguing that, even if ADPH has authority to require licenses for birth centers, the specific licensing rules ADPH adopted for freestanding birth centers unlawfully burden Alabamians’ access to birth center care.
Explore case
Alabama
May 2026
Reproductive Freedom
Oasis Family Birthing Center et. al. v. Alabama Department of Public Health
A group of midwives and doctors filed a lawsuit in state court challenging actions by the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH), which imposed a de facto ban on freestanding birth centers throughout Alabama. Birth centers provide midwifery care to low-risk pregnant patients, a model of care that is proven to be safe and beneficial to patients. Despite that, ADPH took actions that forced one center to abruptly shut down in 2023 despite a perfect safety record, and then passed onerous regulations that would require birth centers to meet hospital-like standards, preventing birth centers from operating in the state. After hearing oral argument in late September 2023, the Circuit Court of Montgomery County granted our request for a Preliminary Injunction on September 30, 2023, preventing ADPH from refusing to timely license freestanding birth centers that comply with nationally-recognized safety standards for birth centers while litigation continues.
In May 2025, the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court issued judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor on Plaintiffs’ threshold claim that freestanding birth centers are not “hospitals” under Alabama law and, therefore, the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH) has no authority to require them to be licensed as such.
However, on appeal in January 2026, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed the lower court's decision, and in May 2026, the Alabama Supreme Court declined the Plaintiffs’ request for further review, leaving the Civil Appeals Court’s decision in place.
The case now returns to the Circuit Court of Montgomery County where Plaintiffs will continue litigating other claims arguing that, even if ADPH has authority to require licenses for birth centers, the specific licensing rules ADPH adopted for freestanding birth centers unlawfully burden Alabamians’ access to birth center care.
Maine
May 2026
National Security
Free Speech
Smith v. Trump
On April 11, 2025, the ACLU and ACLU of Maine filed a lawsuit on behalf of two human rights advocates who, because of an executive order signed by President Trump, have been forced to stop humanitarian work with the International Criminal Court.
Explore case
Maine
May 2026
National Security
Free Speech
Smith v. Trump
On April 11, 2025, the ACLU and ACLU of Maine filed a lawsuit on behalf of two human rights advocates who, because of an executive order signed by President Trump, have been forced to stop humanitarian work with the International Criminal Court.
Louisiana
May 2026
Voting Rights
Bernard v. Landry
This case challenged Louisiana's attempt to suspend congressional primary elections after voting had already begin and tens of thousands of voters had already cast ballots. Plaintiffs argued that refusing to count those ballots violated the constitutional right to vote, and undermined the integrity of the electoral process.
Explore case
Louisiana
May 2026
Voting Rights
Bernard v. Landry
This case challenged Louisiana's attempt to suspend congressional primary elections after voting had already begin and tens of thousands of voters had already cast ballots. Plaintiffs argued that refusing to count those ballots violated the constitutional right to vote, and undermined the integrity of the electoral process.
Minnesota Supreme Court
May 2026
Free Speech
Paragon Restorations, LLC v. Robinet Productions, LLC
This case asks whether an online business review constitutes speech about “a matter of public concern” that warrants protection under Minnesota’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act. We argue that it does because such reviews typically seek to inform the public and help consumers select goods and services. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the statutory and constitutional speech rights of Minnesotans, including consumers and other individuals who may face the threat of defamation suits for expressing their views in public.
Explore case
Minnesota Supreme Court
May 2026
Free Speech
Paragon Restorations, LLC v. Robinet Productions, LLC
This case asks whether an online business review constitutes speech about “a matter of public concern” that warrants protection under Minnesota’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act. We argue that it does because such reviews typically seek to inform the public and help consumers select goods and services. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the statutory and constitutional speech rights of Minnesotans, including consumers and other individuals who may face the threat of defamation suits for expressing their views in public.