Featured

Missouri
Feb 2026
A briefcase of a Census taker.

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’s 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—an unprecedented move that would upend more than two centuries of constitutional practice.
Missouri V. U.s. Department Of Commerce. Explore Case.
Mississippi
Dec 2025
Mississippi

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.
White V. Mississippi State Board Of Elections. Explore Case.
Court Case
Dec 2025
FOIA Case Seeking the Trump Administration’s Legal Justification for Deadly Boat Strikes

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 Ƶis seeking immediate release of the OLC legal opinion and related documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.
Foia Case Seeking The Trump Administration’s Legal Justification For Deadly Boat Strikes. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Dec 2025
A collage image featuring an image of the Supreme Court and an image of a young girl waving an American flag.

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 Ƶand 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.
Barbara V. Donald J. Trump. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Nov 2025
Alabama on a map of the United States of America

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.
Allen V. Milligan. Explore Case.
Washington, D.C.
Oct 2025
trump

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 Ƶand co-counsel filed a lawsuit to block the Executive Order as an unconstitutional power grab.
League Of Women Voters Education Fund V. Trump. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Oct 2025
Mississippi

Voting Rights

State Board of Election Commissioners v. Mississippi State Conference of the NAACP

Mississippi has a growing Black population, which is already the largest Black population percentage of any state in the country. Yet. Black Mississippians continue to be significantly under-represented in the state legislature, as Mississippi’s latest districting maps fail to reflect the reality of the state’s changing demographics. During the 2022 redistricting process, the Mississippi legislature refused to create any new districts where Black voters have a chance to elect their preferred representative. The current district lines therefore dilute the voting power of Black Mississippians and continue to deprive them of political representation that is responsive to their needs and concerns, including severe disparities in education and healthcare.
State Board Of Election Commissioners V. Mississippi State Conference Of The Naacp. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Oct 2025
Louisiana

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.
Louisiana V. Callais (callais V. Landry). Explore Case.
Missouri
Sep 2025
A close up of an "I Voted" sticker.

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.
Wise V. Missouri. Explore Case.

All Cases

1,680 Court Cases

State v. Ochoa
Texas Supreme Court
May 2024

Juvenile Justice

State v. Ochoa

This case in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concerns the admissibility of a fourteen-year-old defendant’s confession following a Texas Ranger’s coercive interrogation. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the Ƶof Texas, filed an amicus brief arguing that the defendant’s confession was induced by positive promises, and is inadmissible, particularly given his juvenile status and the circumstances of the interrogation. In November 2024, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the highest court for criminal appeals in Texas) ruled that Holland's interrogation of Ochoa was unconstitutionally coercive in violation of Ochoa's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.
Explore case
State V. Ochoa. Explore Case.
Texas Supreme Court
May 2024
State v. Ochoa

Juvenile Justice

State v. Ochoa

This case in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concerns the admissibility of a fourteen-year-old defendant’s confession following a Texas Ranger’s coercive interrogation. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the Ƶof Texas, filed an amicus brief arguing that the defendant’s confession was induced by positive promises, and is inadmissible, particularly given his juvenile status and the circumstances of the interrogation. In November 2024, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the highest court for criminal appeals in Texas) ruled that Holland's interrogation of Ochoa was unconstitutionally coercive in violation of Ochoa's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.
State V. Ochoa. Explore Case.
Smith v. BlueCross BlueShield
Tennessee Supreme Court
May 2024

Free Speech

Privacy & Technology

Smith v. BlueCross BlueShield

This case in the Tennessee Supreme Court asks whether the right to petition is an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the Ƶof Tennessee, filed an amicus brief focused on the scope and importance of the right to petition under the Tennessee Constitution.
Explore case
Smith V. Bluecross Blueshield. Explore Case.
Tennessee Supreme Court
May 2024
Smith v. BlueCross BlueShield

Free Speech

Privacy & Technology

Smith v. BlueCross BlueShield

This case in the Tennessee Supreme Court asks whether the right to petition is an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the Ƶof Tennessee, filed an amicus brief focused on the scope and importance of the right to petition under the Tennessee Constitution.
Smith V. Bluecross Blueshield. Explore Case.
Singer v. Orange City
Iowa Supreme Court
May 2024

Criminal Law Reform

Singer v. Orange City

This case in the Iowa Supreme Court asked whether a city ordinance that mandates rental inspections every five years, irrespective of whether a tenant consents to the inspection and in the absence of individualized probable cause, violates the state constitution. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative assisted the Ƶof Iowa in filing an amicus brief to argue that tenants have a right under the Iowa Constitution to be free from non-consensual searches of their rented homes, absent a showing of individualized probable cause. The court ultimately held that the plaintiffs had raised only a facial challenge to the ordinance, and because the ordinance could operate without violating the Iowa Constitution in at least some circumstances, the challenge failed. The court's decision does not foreclose future challenges on an as-applied basis where the plaintiffs' claims are ripe for review.
Explore case
Singer V. Orange City. Explore Case.
Iowa Supreme Court
May 2024
Singer v. Orange City

Criminal Law Reform

Singer v. Orange City

This case in the Iowa Supreme Court asked whether a city ordinance that mandates rental inspections every five years, irrespective of whether a tenant consents to the inspection and in the absence of individualized probable cause, violates the state constitution. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative assisted the Ƶof Iowa in filing an amicus brief to argue that tenants have a right under the Iowa Constitution to be free from non-consensual searches of their rented homes, absent a showing of individualized probable cause. The court ultimately held that the plaintiffs had raised only a facial challenge to the ordinance, and because the ordinance could operate without violating the Iowa Constitution in at least some circumstances, the challenge failed. The court's decision does not foreclose future challenges on an as-applied basis where the plaintiffs' claims are ripe for review.
Singer V. Orange City. Explore Case.
Love v. State
Mississippi Supreme Court
May 2024

Criminal Law Reform

Love v. State

This case in the Mississippi Supreme Court is a post-conviction appeal of a pro se defendant, Mr. Soweto Love, who argued that his guilty plea was not entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the Ƶof Mississippi, filed an amicus brief arguing that the law is on Mr. Love’s side, but urging the Court to exercise its discretion to inform Mr. Love that a win could resuscitate his charge and expose him to longer sentences. Consistent with the Ƶamicus brief, the Mississippi Supreme Court held that the trial court had plainly erred by misinforming Mr. Love that his applicable mandatory minimum was one year of imprisonment on each count to which he had pled guilty, when in in fact the mandatory minimum sentence was five years’ imprisonment on each count. The Court remanded Mr. Love’s case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing.
Explore case
Love V. State. Explore Case.
Mississippi Supreme Court
May 2024
Love v. State

Criminal Law Reform

Love v. State

This case in the Mississippi Supreme Court is a post-conviction appeal of a pro se defendant, Mr. Soweto Love, who argued that his guilty plea was not entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the Ƶof Mississippi, filed an amicus brief arguing that the law is on Mr. Love’s side, but urging the Court to exercise its discretion to inform Mr. Love that a win could resuscitate his charge and expose him to longer sentences. Consistent with the Ƶamicus brief, the Mississippi Supreme Court held that the trial court had plainly erred by misinforming Mr. Love that his applicable mandatory minimum was one year of imprisonment on each count to which he had pled guilty, when in in fact the mandatory minimum sentence was five years’ imprisonment on each count. The Court remanded Mr. Love’s case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing.
Love V. State. Explore Case.
a world with connected lights
Court Case
May 2024

National Security

Ƶv. NSA – FOIA Lawsuit Seeking Records About the NSA’s Use of Artificial Intelligence

The National Security Agency (NSA)—one of the country’s biggest intelligence agencies—has been rapidly developing and deploying AI, but we still know remarkably little about this transformation and its impact on civil rights and civil liberties. As the NSA increasingly integrates AI into its daily operations and some of its most profound decisions, it has left the public largely in the dark about how it is using AI and what safeguards, if any, are in place to protect everyday Americans. In March 2024, the Ƶfiled a request under the Freedom of Information Act seeking the release of recently completed studies, roadmaps, and reports that show how the NSA is using AI and how those tools affect people’s privacy and civil liberties. When the government failed to release the documents sought in our FOIA request, we filed suit in April 2024 to challenge this unjustified secrecy and compel public disclosure of these documents.
Explore case
Aclu V. Nsa – Foia Lawsuit Seeking Records About The Nsa’s Use Of Artificial Intelligence. Explore Case.
Court Case
May 2024
a world with connected lights

National Security

Ƶv. NSA – FOIA Lawsuit Seeking Records About the NSA’s Use of Artificial Intelligence

The National Security Agency (NSA)—one of the country’s biggest intelligence agencies—has been rapidly developing and deploying AI, but we still know remarkably little about this transformation and its impact on civil rights and civil liberties. As the NSA increasingly integrates AI into its daily operations and some of its most profound decisions, it has left the public largely in the dark about how it is using AI and what safeguards, if any, are in place to protect everyday Americans. In March 2024, the Ƶfiled a request under the Freedom of Information Act seeking the release of recently completed studies, roadmaps, and reports that show how the NSA is using AI and how those tools affect people’s privacy and civil liberties. When the government failed to release the documents sought in our FOIA request, we filed suit in April 2024 to challenge this unjustified secrecy and compel public disclosure of these documents.
Aclu V. Nsa – Foia Lawsuit Seeking Records About The Nsa’s Use Of Artificial Intelligence. Explore Case.
6162
63
6465...