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 February 18, 2026
Ongoing
Updated January 26, 2026
Ongoing
Updated January 16, 2026
Ongoing
Updated January 9, 2026
Featured
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’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.
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.
Court Case
Dec 2025
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
Dec 2025
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.
U.S. Supreme Court
Nov 2025
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.
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.
U.S. Supreme Court
Oct 2025
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.
U.S. Supreme Court
Oct 2025
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
Sep 2025
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.
All Cases
1,677 Court Cases
Idaho
Apr 2023
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawai’i, Indiana, Kentucky v. Labrador
In April 2023, a group of health care providers and advocates sued to stop Idaho Attorney General Labrador from applying a legal opinion in which he claims that health care providers cannot refer patients out of state for abortion care under Idaho law. Under the opinion, any assistance from a health care provider — including offering information about other states’ abortion providers and abortion funds — could be a violation of Idaho’s abortion ban, threatening health care licenses or even criminal prosecution. This interpretation goes far beyond Idaho’s law and is an extreme attempt to prevent health care providers from giving information to patients and to prevent Idahoans from accessing legal health care in another state.
Explore case
Idaho
Apr 2023
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawai’i, Indiana, Kentucky v. Labrador
In April 2023, a group of health care providers and advocates sued to stop Idaho Attorney General Labrador from applying a legal opinion in which he claims that health care providers cannot refer patients out of state for abortion care under Idaho law. Under the opinion, any assistance from a health care provider — including offering information about other states’ abortion providers and abortion funds — could be a violation of Idaho’s abortion ban, threatening health care licenses or even criminal prosecution. This interpretation goes far beyond Idaho’s law and is an extreme attempt to prevent health care providers from giving information to patients and to prevent Idahoans from accessing legal health care in another state.
Court Case
Apr 2023
Privacy & Technology
National Security
ACLU v. FBI - FOIA Case for FBI Records Related to Nondisclosure Agreements for Cell Site Simulators
In 2021, the ACLU submitted a FOIA request to the FBI to determine whether the FBI has continued to require state and local law enforcement agencies to enter into nondisclosure agreements before purchasing or using cell site simulators. After appealing and suing, the ACLU finally obtained responsive records confirming that the FBI has continued to impose nondisclosure agreements on law enforcement agencies seeking to use the FBI’s cell site simulators.
Explore case
Court Case
Apr 2023
Privacy & Technology
National Security
ACLU v. FBI - FOIA Case for FBI Records Related to Nondisclosure Agreements for Cell Site Simulators
In 2021, the ACLU submitted a FOIA request to the FBI to determine whether the FBI has continued to require state and local law enforcement agencies to enter into nondisclosure agreements before purchasing or using cell site simulators. After appealing and suing, the ACLU finally obtained responsive records confirming that the FBI has continued to impose nondisclosure agreements on law enforcement agencies seeking to use the FBI’s cell site simulators.
Puerto Rico
Apr 2023
Free Speech
RodrĂguez-Cotto v. Pierluisi-Urrutia
This case is about whether the government can impose sweeping restrictions on “false alarms” about public emergencies, without specifying what constitutes a false alarm.
Explore case
Puerto Rico
Apr 2023
Free Speech
RodrĂguez-Cotto v. Pierluisi-Urrutia
This case is about whether the government can impose sweeping restrictions on “false alarms” about public emergencies, without specifying what constitutes a false alarm.
Pennsylvania
Mar 2023
Religious Liberty
The Satanic Temple v. Saucon Valley School District
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Pennsylvania, and Dechert LLP filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Saucon Valley School District (SVSD) in March 2023 for violating the First Amendment by prohibiting the After School Satan Club (ASSC) from meeting in district facilities. Although school officials initially approved the club’s application — explaining in an email to parents that the district “cannot discriminate among groups wishing to use the SVSD facilities” — they quickly bowed to the ensuing public outcry. The case seeks to allow the ASSC to meet in district facilities.
Explore case
Pennsylvania
Mar 2023
Religious Liberty
The Satanic Temple v. Saucon Valley School District
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Pennsylvania, and Dechert LLP filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Saucon Valley School District (SVSD) in March 2023 for violating the First Amendment by prohibiting the After School Satan Club (ASSC) from meeting in district facilities. Although school officials initially approved the club’s application — explaining in an email to parents that the district “cannot discriminate among groups wishing to use the SVSD facilities” — they quickly bowed to the ensuing public outcry. The case seeks to allow the ASSC to meet in district facilities.
South Carolina
Mar 2023
Smart Justice
Racial Justice
Brown v. Lexington County, et al
This case is part of a nationwide fight against criminalization of poverty and, specifically, debtors' prisons. On June 1, 2017, the ACLU's Racial Justice Program, the ACLU of South Carolina, and Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC filed a federal lawsuit challenging the illegal arrest and incarceration of indigent people in Lexington County, South Carolina, for failure to pay fines and fees, without determining willfulness or providing assistance to counsel. Those targeted by this long-standing practice could avoid jail only if they paid the entire amount of outstanding court fines and fees up front and in full. Indigent people who were unable to pay were incarcerated for weeks to months without ever seeing a judge, having a court hearing, or receiving help from a lawyer. The result was one of the most draconian debtors’ prisons uncovered by the ACLU since 2010.
Explore case
South Carolina
Mar 2023
Smart Justice
Racial Justice
Brown v. Lexington County, et al
This case is part of a nationwide fight against criminalization of poverty and, specifically, debtors' prisons. On June 1, 2017, the ACLU's Racial Justice Program, the ACLU of South Carolina, and Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC filed a federal lawsuit challenging the illegal arrest and incarceration of indigent people in Lexington County, South Carolina, for failure to pay fines and fees, without determining willfulness or providing assistance to counsel. Those targeted by this long-standing practice could avoid jail only if they paid the entire amount of outstanding court fines and fees up front and in full. Indigent people who were unable to pay were incarcerated for weeks to months without ever seeing a judge, having a court hearing, or receiving help from a lawyer. The result was one of the most draconian debtors’ prisons uncovered by the ACLU since 2010.