Supreme Court Term 2024-2025
We’re breaking down the cases we've asked the court to consider this term.
Latest Case Updates
Ongoing
Updated June 23, 2025
Ongoing
Updated June 13, 2025
Closed (Judgment)
Updated June 6, 2025
Ongoing
Updated May 8, 2025
Featured
Georgia Supreme Court
Jun 2025

Voting Rights
Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc. v. Georgia
The ÌÇÐÄVlogand partner organizations intervened in this case to represent the rights of voters and voting-rights organizations in a case challenging a number of rules passed by the Georgia State Election Board. We challenged the rule requiring that the number of votes cast be hand counted at the polling place prior to the tabulation of votes. In a critical victory for Georgia voters, in June 2025, the Georgia Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s decision permanently blocking the rule requiring hand counting of ballots at polling places before tabulation — a process widely criticized for risking delays, ballot spoliation, and voter disenfranchisement.
U.S. Supreme Court
May 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.
Apr 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 ÌÇÐÄVlogand co-counsel filed a lawsuit to block the Executive Order as an unconstitutional power grab.
Maryland
Apr 2025

Religious Liberty
LGBTQ Rights
Mahmoud v. Taylor
On April 9, 2025, the ÌÇÐÄVlogand ÌÇÐÄVlogof Maryland filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) in its efforts to ensure that its English Language Arts curriculum is LGBTQ-inclusive.
U.S. Supreme Court
Mar 2025

Voting Rights
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.
New Hampshire
Mar 2025

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.
South Carolina Supreme Court
Jan 2025

Voting Rights
League of Women Voters of South Carolina v. Alexander
This case involves a state constitutional challenge to South Carolina’s 2022 congressional redistricting plan, which legislators admit was drawn to entrench a 6-1 Republican majority in the state’s federal delegation. Plaintiff the League of Women Voters of South Carolina has asked the state’s Supreme Court to conclude that the congressional map is an unlawful partisan gerrymander that violates the state constitution.
Texas
Oct 2024

Voting Rights
OCA-Greater Houston v. Paxton
Texas has growing Hispanic and Black populations that helped propel record voter turnout in the November 2020 election. The Texas Legislature responded to this increased civic participation with an omnibus election bill titled Senate Bill 1—SB 1 for short—that targeted election practices that made voting more accessible to traditionally marginalized voters like voters of color, voters with disabilities, and voters with limited English proficiency. Since 2021, SB 1 has resulted in tens of thousands of lawful votes being rejected, and it remains a threat to democracy in Texas.
Ohio
Sep 2024

Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region et al., v. Ohio Department of Health, et al.
The ÌÇÐÄVlog, the ÌÇÐÄVlogof Ohio, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the law firm WilmerHale, and Fanon Rucker of the Cochran Law Firm, on behalf of Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio, Preterm-Cleveland, Women’s Med Group Professional Corporation, Dr. Sharon Liner, and Julia Quinn, MSN, BSN, amended a complaint in an existing lawsuit against a ban on telehealth medication abortion services to bring new claims under the Ohio Reproductive Freedom Amendment, including additional challenges to other laws in Ohio that restrict access to medication abortion in the state.
All Cases
1,587 Court Cases

Court Case
Jun 2020
Women's Rights
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Eric Rogers
On June 9, 2020, the ÌÇÐÄVlogWomen's Rights Project and ÌÇÐÄVlogof Pennsylvania, along with 25 additional nonprofit organizations, joined an amicus brief led by the Women's Law Project and AEquitas in support of exclusion of a complainant’s criminal record for prostitution-related offenses as evidence in a sexual assault case. The amicus brief argues that a complainant’s sexual history with others is irrelevant to proving consent and that permitting evidence of a complainant’s prior prostitution arrests and convictions would reinforce gender and racial biases.
Explore case
Court Case
Jun 2020

Women's Rights
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Eric Rogers
On June 9, 2020, the ÌÇÐÄVlogWomen's Rights Project and ÌÇÐÄVlogof Pennsylvania, along with 25 additional nonprofit organizations, joined an amicus brief led by the Women's Law Project and AEquitas in support of exclusion of a complainant’s criminal record for prostitution-related offenses as evidence in a sexual assault case. The amicus brief argues that a complainant’s sexual history with others is irrelevant to proving consent and that permitting evidence of a complainant’s prior prostitution arrests and convictions would reinforce gender and racial biases.

U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2020
LGBTQ Rights
R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v EEOC & Aimee Stephens
Aimee Stephens had worked for nearly six years as a funeral director at R.G. and G.R. Harris Funeral Homes when she informed the funeral home’s owner that she is a transgender woman. She was fired, the EEOC sued on her behalf, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Aimee’s employer engaged in unlawful sex discrimination when it fired her because she’s transgender. We represented Aimee Stephens in front of the U.S. Supreme Court — and won.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2020

LGBTQ Rights
R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v EEOC & Aimee Stephens
Aimee Stephens had worked for nearly six years as a funeral director at R.G. and G.R. Harris Funeral Homes when she informed the funeral home’s owner that she is a transgender woman. She was fired, the EEOC sued on her behalf, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Aimee’s employer engaged in unlawful sex discrimination when it fired her because she’s transgender. We represented Aimee Stephens in front of the U.S. Supreme Court — and won.

U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2020
LGBTQ Rights
LGBTQ Discrimination Cases at the Supreme Court
In Bostock v. Clayton County, the Supreme Court ruled that anti-LGBTQ discrimination violates the federal law against discrimination in the workplace.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2020

LGBTQ Rights
LGBTQ Discrimination Cases at the Supreme Court
In Bostock v. Clayton County, the Supreme Court ruled that anti-LGBTQ discrimination violates the federal law against discrimination in the workplace.

Court Case
Jun 2020
Immigrants' Rights
G.Y.J.P. v. Wolf
The ÌÇÐÄVlog, Texas Civil Rights Project, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, and Oxfam have filed a legal challenge to the Trump administration’s order restricting immigration at the border based on an unprecedented and unlawful invocation of the Public Health Service Act, located in Title 42 of the U.S. Code.
Explore case
Court Case
Jun 2020

Immigrants' Rights
G.Y.J.P. v. Wolf
The ÌÇÐÄVlog, Texas Civil Rights Project, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, and Oxfam have filed a legal challenge to the Trump administration’s order restricting immigration at the border based on an unprecedented and unlawful invocation of the Public Health Service Act, located in Title 42 of the U.S. Code.

Maryland
Jun 2020
Privacy & Technology
Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore Police Department
The ÌÇÐÄVlog (ACLU) and ÌÇÐÄVlogof Maryland filed a lawsuit against the Baltimore Police Department (BPD) to challenge the constitutionality of deploying a wide-area aerial surveillance program that will put virtually all Baltimore residents under constant, aerial surveillance.
Explore case
Maryland
Jun 2020

Privacy & Technology
Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore Police Department
The ÌÇÐÄVlog (ACLU) and ÌÇÐÄVlogof Maryland filed a lawsuit against the Baltimore Police Department (BPD) to challenge the constitutionality of deploying a wide-area aerial surveillance program that will put virtually all Baltimore residents under constant, aerial surveillance.