Featured

U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2022
Bans Off Our Bodies Protest Sign

Reproductive Freedom

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

The case concerns the constitutionality of a Mississippi law prohibiting abortions after the fifteenth week of pregnancy. The state used the case as a vehicle to ask the Supreme Court to take away the federal constitutional right to abortion it first recognized 50 years before in Roe v. Wade. On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States accepted the state’s invitation and overturned Roe eliminating the federal constitutional right to abortion.
Dobbs V. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 2022
FBI v. Fazaga Plaintiffs

Privacy & Technology

+2 Ƶ

FBI v. Fazaga

In a case scheduled to be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on November 8, 2021, three Muslim Americans are challenging the FBI’s secret spying on them and their communities based on their religion, in violation of the Constitution and federal law. In what will likely be a landmark case, the plaintiffs — Yassir Fazaga, Ali Uddin Malik, and Yasser Abdelrahim — insist that the FBI cannot escape accountability for violating their religious freedom by invoking “state secrets.” The plaintiffs are represented by the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law, the Ƶof Southern California, the Ƶ, the Council for American Islamic Relations, and the law firm of Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai.
Fbi V. Fazaga. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 2022
RFP attorneys Alexa Kolbi-Molinas and Andrew Beck heading towards the Supreme Court to argue the case.

Reproductive Freedom

Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center

In 2018, the Ƶ and the Ƶof Kentucky filed a suit on behalf of Kentucky abortion providers and their patients challenging a state law banning physicians from providing a safe and medically proven abortion method called dilation and evacuation, or “D&E.” If it were to take effect, this law would prevent many patients from being able to obtain an abortion altogether. After two courts held that the law is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruled in March 2022 that Kentucky Attorney General Cameron can continue his pursuit to push abortion out of reach by intervening in the underlying challenge to an abortion ban, which is proceeding in a lower court.
Cameron V. Emw Women’s Surgical Center. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2022
Garland v. Gonzalez

Immigrants' Rights

Garland v. Gonzalez

Whether the Immigration and Nationality Act requires a bond hearing for immigrants subject to prolonged detention while seeking protection in the U.S. from persecution or torture.
Garland V. Gonzalez. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Dec 2021
Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson

Reproductive Freedom

Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson

The Ƶ, the Ƶof Texas, and coalition partners filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of abortion providers and funds on July 13, 2021, challenging S.B. 8, a Texas law allowing private citizens to enforce a ban on abortion as early as six weeks in pregnancy—before many know they are pregnant. The ACLU’s challenge made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court three times in as many months. After hearing oral arguments in the case, the Court issued a decision on December 10, 2021, that ended the most promising pathways to blocking the ban. The Supreme Court’s decision makes it more difficult to obtain adequate relief from the courts and gives states the green light to ban abortion using bounty-hunting schemes. Texas’ abortion ban will remain in effect until relief can be secured from a court.
Whole Woman's Health V. Jackson. Explore Case.

All Cases

25 Supreme Court Cases during the 2021 Term

Carmack v. Janny et al
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2022

Religious Liberty

+2 Ƶ

Carmack v. Janny et al

The Ƶ, along with Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and Colorado law firm DLA Piper, represent Mark Janny, an atheist whose religious-freedom rights were violated by his parole officer when Janny was sent to jail after refusing to take part in worship and religious activities.
Explore case
Carmack V. Janny Et Al. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2022
Carmack v. Janny et al

Religious Liberty

+2 Ƶ

Carmack v. Janny et al

The Ƶ, along with Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and Colorado law firm DLA Piper, represent Mark Janny, an atheist whose religious-freedom rights were violated by his parole officer when Janny was sent to jail after refusing to take part in worship and religious activities.
Carmack V. Janny Et Al. Explore Case.
Concepcion v. United States
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2022

Criminal Law Reform

Racial Justice

Concepcion v. United States

Whether a district court must or may consider intervening legal and factual developments when deciding if it should “impose a reduced sentence” on an individual under Section 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018, which was enacted to ameliorate the unjust sentences imposed by overly harsh treatment of crack cocaine offenses under prior law.
Explore case
Concepcion V. United States. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2022
Concepcion v. United States

Criminal Law Reform

Racial Justice

Concepcion v. United States

Whether a district court must or may consider intervening legal and factual developments when deciding if it should “impose a reduced sentence” on an individual under Section 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018, which was enacted to ameliorate the unjust sentences imposed by overly harsh treatment of crack cocaine offenses under prior law.
Concepcion V. United States. Explore Case.
Arlene's Flowers et al v. Washington et al
U.S. Supreme Court
Nov 2021

LGBTQ Rights

Religious Liberty

Arlene's Flowers et al v. Washington et al

After the Washington Supreme Court found that the refusal of Arlene’s Flowers to sell flowers to a gay couple violated Washington Law Against Discrimination and the Consumer Protection Act, the flower shop sought review by the Supreme Court of the United States. The US Supreme Court subsequently remanded to the WA Supreme Court and on June 6, 2019, the WA Supreme Court affirmed their earlier decision. On September 11, 2019, Arlene's Flowers filed to hear the case again, at the Supreme Court of the United States.
Explore case
Arlene's Flowers Et Al V. Washington Et Al. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Nov 2021
Arlene's Flowers et al v. Washington et al

LGBTQ Rights

Religious Liberty

Arlene's Flowers et al v. Washington et al

After the Washington Supreme Court found that the refusal of Arlene’s Flowers to sell flowers to a gay couple violated Washington Law Against Discrimination and the Consumer Protection Act, the flower shop sought review by the Supreme Court of the United States. The US Supreme Court subsequently remanded to the WA Supreme Court and on June 6, 2019, the WA Supreme Court affirmed their earlier decision. On September 11, 2019, Arlene's Flowers filed to hear the case again, at the Supreme Court of the United States.
Arlene's Flowers Et Al V. Washington Et Al. Explore Case.
CVS Pharmacy, Inc. v. Doe
U.S. Supreme Court
Nov 2021

Disability Rights

CVS Pharmacy, Inc. v. Doe

Whether Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act creates a private cause of action for disparate impact claims.
Explore case
Cvs Pharmacy, Inc. V. Doe. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Nov 2021
CVS Pharmacy, Inc. v. Doe

Disability Rights

CVS Pharmacy, Inc. v. Doe

Whether Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act creates a private cause of action for disparate impact claims.
Cvs Pharmacy, Inc. V. Doe. Explore Case.
NSA Building
U.S. Supreme Court
Nov 2021

National Security

Free Speech

Ƶv. United States

The Ƶhas filed three motions in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) asking it to release secret opinions authorizing the surveillance of Americans. The public has a right to see the legal decisions addressing novel surveillance programs that affect our privacy and free speech rights — but many of the FISC’s opinions remained closely guarded secrets. After the FISC and its appeals court rejected the ACLU’s public access arguments in a series of rulings, the Ƶasked the Supreme Court to review those rulings and to recognize that the public has a First Amendment right of access to the FISC’s opinions.
Explore case
Aclu V. United States. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Nov 2021
NSA Building

National Security

Free Speech

Ƶv. United States

The Ƶhas filed three motions in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) asking it to release secret opinions authorizing the surveillance of Americans. The public has a right to see the legal decisions addressing novel surveillance programs that affect our privacy and free speech rights — but many of the FISC’s opinions remained closely guarded secrets. After the FISC and its appeals court rejected the ACLU’s public access arguments in a series of rulings, the Ƶasked the Supreme Court to review those rulings and to recognize that the public has a First Amendment right of access to the FISC’s opinions.
Aclu V. United States. Explore Case.
23
4
5

How Do Terms Work?

Between October and late June or early July the Supreme Court is “in session,” meaning it hears oral arguments, issues written decisions, and decides whether to take additional cases.

Submitting petitions

Our legal team at the Ƶfiles a cert petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, a type of petition that usually argues that a lower court has incorrectly decided an important question of law that violates civil rights and should be fixed to prevent similar confusion in similar cases.

term starts

U.S. Supreme Court decides to take a case

On average, the Court considers about 7,000 ‐ 8,000 petitions each term and accepts about 80 for oral argument.

Oral arguments

This is the period where the U.S. Supreme Court listens to our case in court.

U.S. Supreme Court makes final decisions

While the U.S. Supreme Court makes decisions throughout the term, many are released right before the term ends. If a decision doesn't go in our favor, we fight back!