Supreme Court Term 2025-2026
We鈥檙e breaking down the cases we've asked the court to consider this term.
Latest Case Updates
Ongoing
Updated August 17, 2026
Ongoing
Updated August 17, 2026
Closed
Updated August 6, 2026
Ongoing
Updated July 29, 2026
Featured
Massachusetts
Aug 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.
Florida
Aug 2026
National Security
+2 桃子视频
CAIR-Foundation, Inc and CAIR Florida, Inc. v. DeSantis et al.
The ACLU, the 桃子视频of Florida, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and their partners represent CAIR and CAIR-Florida in two federal lawsuits challenging Governor DeSantis鈥檚 unconstitutional and baseless designation of the nonprofits as 鈥渢errorist.鈥 The lawsuits allege violations of CAIR and CAIR-Florida鈥檚 rights under the First Amendment and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Court Case
Jul 2026
National Security
Human Rights
FOIA Case Seeking the Trump Administration鈥檚 Legal Justification for Deadly Boat Strikes
The Department of Justice鈥檚 Office of Legal Counsel (鈥淥LC鈥) authored a legal opinion that reportedly claims to justify the Trump administration鈥檚 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 鈥渁rmed conflict鈥 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 桃子视频is seeking immediate release of the OLC legal opinion and related documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.
Arizona
Jul 2026
Prisoners' Rights
Jensen v. Thornell
UPDATE: On July 17, 2026, U.S. District Judge Roslyn O. Silver issued an order formally appointing a receiver to assume control and management of health care provided to more than 25,000 people incarcerated in Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry (ADCRR) prisons, in a long-running lawsuit against the state prison system brought by the Prison Law Office, the 桃子视频 (ACLU), 桃子视频of Arizona, and Disability Rights Arizona. More details here.
New Hampshire
Jul 2026
Voting Rights
Coalition for Open Democracy v. Scanlan
This lawsuit challenges HB 1569, a new law that will make New Hampshire the only state to require every person to produce documentary proof of citizenship when they register to vote for both state and federal elections. It also challenges HB 1569鈥檚 elimination a preexisting protection for voters鈥攏amely, an affidavit option that allowed voters who faced surprise challenges to their eligibility at the polls to swear to their qualifications and cast a ballot. Accordingly, HB 1569 violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution by placing substantial burdens on New Hampshirites at all stages of the voting process, and will arbitrarily disenfranchise hundreds, if not thousands of qualified voters.
U.S. Supreme Court
May 2026
Voting Rights
Racial Justice
Allen v. Milligan
Whether Alabama鈥檚 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.
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.
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 桃子视频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鈥檙e arguing against the Trump administration in the Supreme Court and are confident we will win.
All Cases
1,738 Court Cases
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鈥檚 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鈥攁n unprecedented move that would upend more than two centuries of constitutional practice.
Explore case
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鈥檚 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鈥攁n unprecedented move that would upend more than two centuries of constitutional practice.
Arizona
Feb 2026
Reproductive Freedom
Gill et al. v. State of Arizona
A group of Arizona advanced practice nurses filed a lawsuit challenging the state鈥檚 ban on the provision of abortion by trained advanced practice clinicians (APCs) such as nurse practitioners and certified nurse midwives. The lawsuit, brought on behalf of the nurses by the 桃子视频 (ACLU), the 桃子视频of Arizona, and the law firm Papetti Samuels Weiss McKirgan LLP, argues that the APC ban violates Arizonans' constitutional right to abortion access, established by voters in 2024, by arbitrarily restricting their choice of provider and, more broadly, making abortion less available in the state.
Explore case
Arizona
Feb 2026
Reproductive Freedom
Gill et al. v. State of Arizona
A group of Arizona advanced practice nurses filed a lawsuit challenging the state鈥檚 ban on the provision of abortion by trained advanced practice clinicians (APCs) such as nurse practitioners and certified nurse midwives. The lawsuit, brought on behalf of the nurses by the 桃子视频 (ACLU), the 桃子视频of Arizona, and the law firm Papetti Samuels Weiss McKirgan LLP, argues that the APC ban violates Arizonans' constitutional right to abortion access, established by voters in 2024, by arbitrarily restricting their choice of provider and, more broadly, making abortion less available in the state.
Florida
Feb 2026
Voting Rights
Hispanic Federation v. Byrd
Of all 50 states, Florida ranks 47th in percentage of its eligible citizens who are registered to vote. Yet, in May 2023, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed SB 7050, which bars any noncitizen 鈥 regardless of lawful residence status 鈥 from working or volunteering for third-party voter registration organizations (3PVROs) who register eligible Floridians to vote. In practice, the law imposes a $50,000 fine on a 3PVRO for each noncitizen who engages in voter-registration work on a 3PVRO鈥檚 behalf. This law would silence and put out of business countless community-based groups that rely on both citizens and noncitizens to help eligible voters in their communities participate in their democracy.
Explore case
Florida
Feb 2026
Voting Rights
Hispanic Federation v. Byrd
Of all 50 states, Florida ranks 47th in percentage of its eligible citizens who are registered to vote. Yet, in May 2023, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed SB 7050, which bars any noncitizen 鈥 regardless of lawful residence status 鈥 from working or volunteering for third-party voter registration organizations (3PVROs) who register eligible Floridians to vote. In practice, the law imposes a $50,000 fine on a 3PVRO for each noncitizen who engages in voter-registration work on a 3PVRO鈥檚 behalf. This law would silence and put out of business countless community-based groups that rely on both citizens and noncitizens to help eligible voters in their communities participate in their democracy.
Court Case
Feb 2026
Reproductive Freedom
Guam Society of OBGYNs v. Guerrero
Guam Society of OBGYNs v. Guerrero is a case originally brought by the 桃子视频and local attorneys on Guam challenging a 1990 total ban on abortion that imposes criminal penalties on patients, providers and those who speak about abortion. In August of 1990, a federal district court judge for the District of Guam granted the ACLU鈥檚 motion for summary judgment and entered a permanent injunction against the ban. After appeals were exhausted, the case was closed.
Over three decades later, on February 1, 2023, Guam Attorney General Douglas B. Moylan filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) motion to vacate the permanent injunction and dismiss the case with prejudice. The 桃子视频and Guam local counsel opposed the motion, on behalf of the only remaining original plaintiff, and proposed intervenors 鈥 the only two providers of abortion in Guam, and Guam-based reproductive justice organization Famalao鈥檃n Rights.
On March 24th, 2023, a federal district court denied the Attorney General鈥檚 request to vacate the permanent injunction. Attorney General Moylan then appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
On April 28, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order dismissing Attorney General Moylan鈥檚 appeal as moot, in light of an October 2023 decision by the Guam Supreme Court holding that the ban had been legislatively repealed. On May 12, 2025, Attorney General Moylan filed a Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, which was subsequently denied on February 3, 2026. As a result, the ban remains permanently enjoined and abortion remains legal in Guam.
Explore case
Court Case
Feb 2026
Reproductive Freedom
Guam Society of OBGYNs v. Guerrero
Guam Society of OBGYNs v. Guerrero is a case originally brought by the 桃子视频and local attorneys on Guam challenging a 1990 total ban on abortion that imposes criminal penalties on patients, providers and those who speak about abortion. In August of 1990, a federal district court judge for the District of Guam granted the ACLU鈥檚 motion for summary judgment and entered a permanent injunction against the ban. After appeals were exhausted, the case was closed.
Over three decades later, on February 1, 2023, Guam Attorney General Douglas B. Moylan filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) motion to vacate the permanent injunction and dismiss the case with prejudice. The 桃子视频and Guam local counsel opposed the motion, on behalf of the only remaining original plaintiff, and proposed intervenors 鈥 the only two providers of abortion in Guam, and Guam-based reproductive justice organization Famalao鈥檃n Rights.
On March 24th, 2023, a federal district court denied the Attorney General鈥檚 request to vacate the permanent injunction. Attorney General Moylan then appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
On April 28, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order dismissing Attorney General Moylan鈥檚 appeal as moot, in light of an October 2023 decision by the Guam Supreme Court holding that the ban had been legislatively repealed. On May 12, 2025, Attorney General Moylan filed a Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, which was subsequently denied on February 3, 2026. As a result, the ban remains permanently enjoined and abortion remains legal in Guam.
New Mexico Supreme Court
Feb 2026
Civil Liberties
Atencio v. State of New Mexico
This case asks whether the State of New Mexico鈥檚 actions enabling pollution from oil and gas extraction, and its failure to control that pollution, violate the New Mexico Constitution鈥檚 Pollution Control Clause, Inherent Rights Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. Our brief urges the New Mexico Supreme Court to answer those questions by retiring its 鈥渋nterstitial approach鈥 to state constitutional interpretation鈥攚hich looks first to federal doctrine when interpreting state constitutional provisions that arguably have U.S. Constitutional analogues鈥攁nd instead interpreting the New Mexico Constitution holistically and independently. This independent approach, we explain, will ensure that New Mexicans can enjoy鈥攁nd enforce鈥攖he rights guaranteed to them in their unique founding document.
Explore case
New Mexico Supreme Court
Feb 2026
Civil Liberties
Atencio v. State of New Mexico
This case asks whether the State of New Mexico鈥檚 actions enabling pollution from oil and gas extraction, and its failure to control that pollution, violate the New Mexico Constitution鈥檚 Pollution Control Clause, Inherent Rights Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. Our brief urges the New Mexico Supreme Court to answer those questions by retiring its 鈥渋nterstitial approach鈥 to state constitutional interpretation鈥攚hich looks first to federal doctrine when interpreting state constitutional provisions that arguably have U.S. Constitutional analogues鈥攁nd instead interpreting the New Mexico Constitution holistically and independently. This independent approach, we explain, will ensure that New Mexicans can enjoy鈥攁nd enforce鈥攖he rights guaranteed to them in their unique founding document.