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

1,678 Court Cases

NH
New Hampshire
Feb 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’s elimination a preexisting protection for voters—namely, 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.
Explore case
Coalition For Open Democracy V. Scanlan. Explore Case.
New Hampshire
Feb 2026
NH

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’s elimination a preexisting protection for voters—namely, 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.
Coalition For Open Democracy V. Scanlan. Explore Case.
Gill et al. v. State of Arizona
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’s 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 Ƶ (ACLU), the Ƶof 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
Gill Et Al. V. State Of Arizona. Explore Case.
Arizona
Feb 2026
Gill et al. v. State of Arizona

Reproductive Freedom

Gill et al. v. State of Arizona

A group of Arizona advanced practice nurses filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s 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 Ƶ (ACLU), the Ƶof 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.
Gill Et Al. V. State Of Arizona. Explore Case.
VT
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 — regardless of lawful residence status — 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’s 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
Hispanic Federation V. Byrd. Explore Case.
Florida
Feb 2026
VT

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 — regardless of lawful residence status — 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’s 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.
Hispanic Federation V. Byrd. Explore Case.
HUSSEN v. NOEM
Minnesota
Feb 2026

Immigrants' Rights

HUSSEN v. NOEM

The Ƶ, Ƶof Minnesota, Covington & Burling LLP, Greene Espel PLLP, and Robins Kaplan LLP filed a class-action lawsuit against the Trump administration on behalf of three community members — and a class of similarly situated people — whose constitutional rights were violated by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and other federal agents.
Explore case
Hussen V. Noem. Explore Case.
Minnesota
Feb 2026
HUSSEN v. NOEM

Immigrants' Rights

HUSSEN v. NOEM

The Ƶ, Ƶof Minnesota, Covington & Burling LLP, Greene Espel PLLP, and Robins Kaplan LLP filed a class-action lawsuit against the Trump administration on behalf of three community members — and a class of similarly situated people — whose constitutional rights were violated by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and other federal agents.
Hussen V. Noem. Explore Case.
Guam Society of OBGYNs v. Guerrero
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 Ƶand 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’s 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 Ƶand Guam local counsel opposed the motion, on behalf of the only remaining original plaintiff, and proposed intervenors — the only two providers of abortion in Guam, and Guam-based reproductive justice organization Famalao’an Rights. On March 24th, 2023, a federal district court denied the Attorney General’s 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’s 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
Guam Society Of Obgyns V. Guerrero. Explore Case.
Court Case
Feb 2026
Guam Society of OBGYNs v. Guerrero

Reproductive Freedom

Guam Society of OBGYNs v. Guerrero

Guam Society of OBGYNs v. Guerrero is a case originally brought by the Ƶand 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’s 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 Ƶand Guam local counsel opposed the motion, on behalf of the only remaining original plaintiff, and proposed intervenors — the only two providers of abortion in Guam, and Guam-based reproductive justice organization Famalao’an Rights. On March 24th, 2023, a federal district court denied the Attorney General’s 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’s 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.
Guam Society Of Obgyns V. Guerrero. Explore Case.
45
6
78...