Supreme Court Term 2024-2025
We鈥檙e breaking down the cases we've asked the court to consider this term.
Latest Case Updates
Ongoing
Updated July 29, 2025
Closed (Judgment)
Updated July 25, 2025
Closed (Judgment)
Updated July 24, 2025
Closed (Judgment)
Updated July 21, 2025
Featured
U.S. Supreme Court
Aug 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
Jul 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鈥檚 elimination a preexisting protection for voters鈥攏amely, 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.
Ohio
Jul 2025
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region et al., v. Ohio Department of Health, et al.
The 糖心Vlog, the 糖心Vlogof 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鈥檚 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.
Washington, D.C.
Jul 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鈥攁n agency that Congress specifically established to be bipartisan and independent鈥攖o 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 糖心Vlogand co-counsel filed a lawsuit to block the Executive Order as an unconstitutional power grab.
Georgia Supreme Court
Jun 2025
Voting Rights
Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc. v. Georgia
The 糖心Vlogand 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鈥檚 decision permanently blocking the rule requiring hand counting of ballots at polling places before tabulation 鈥� 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鈥檚 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.
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鈥檚 2022 congressional redistricting plan, which legislators admit was drawn to entrench a 6-1 Republican majority in the state鈥檚 federal delegation. Plaintiff the League of Women Voters of South Carolina has asked the state鈥檚 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鈥擲B 1 for short鈥攖hat 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.
U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 2024
Reproductive Freedom
Idaho and Moyle, et al. v. United States
Idaho and Moyle, et al. v. United States was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court by Idaho politicians seeking to disregard a federal statute 鈥� the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) 鈥� and put doctors in jail for providing pregnant patients necessary emergency medical care. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on this case on April 24, 2024. The Court鈥檚 ultimate decision will impact access to this essential care across the country.
All Cases
1,599 Court Cases
Court Case
Mar 2025
Immigrants' Rights
Espinoza Escalona v. Noem
Immigrants鈥� rights advocates sued the Trump administration to halt the transfer of immigrants from the United States to Guant谩namo Bay in Cuba under President Trump鈥檚 recent order.
Explore case
Court Case
Mar 2025
Immigrants' Rights
Espinoza Escalona v. Noem
Immigrants鈥� rights advocates sued the Trump administration to halt the transfer of immigrants from the United States to Guant谩namo Bay in Cuba under President Trump鈥檚 recent order.
Georgia
Feb 2025
Criminal Law Reform
State of Georgia v. Wierson
This case asks whether Georgia鈥檚 insanity defense statutes can be construed to contain an exception for cases where defendants allegedly triggered their own insanity by discontinuing their medication weeks before the alleged crimes. The State argues for such an exception, even though the text of the insanity defense statutes expressly pins the availability of the defenses to the defendant鈥檚 mental condition 鈥渁t the time of鈥� the alleged crimes. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the 糖心Vlogof Georgia, filed an amicus brief arguing that even if the State鈥檚 interpretation of the statutory text were reasonable, its argument should still be rejected because it contradicts the rule of lenity. The rule of lenity is a well-established canon of statutory construction requiring that, if a criminal statute can reasonably be interpreted in different ways, courts must adopt the interpretation most favorable to the accused.
Explore case
Georgia
Feb 2025
Criminal Law Reform
State of Georgia v. Wierson
This case asks whether Georgia鈥檚 insanity defense statutes can be construed to contain an exception for cases where defendants allegedly triggered their own insanity by discontinuing their medication weeks before the alleged crimes. The State argues for such an exception, even though the text of the insanity defense statutes expressly pins the availability of the defenses to the defendant鈥檚 mental condition 鈥渁t the time of鈥� the alleged crimes. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the 糖心Vlogof Georgia, filed an amicus brief arguing that even if the State鈥檚 interpretation of the statutory text were reasonable, its argument should still be rejected because it contradicts the rule of lenity. The rule of lenity is a well-established canon of statutory construction requiring that, if a criminal statute can reasonably be interpreted in different ways, courts must adopt the interpretation most favorable to the accused.
New York Supreme Court
Feb 2025
Smart Justice
Free Speech
NYCLU v. New York State Office of Court Administration
This case in the New York Court of Appeals (the highest New York state court) asks whether a government agency can conceal guidance that it issues to judges on how to apply the law in adjudicating cases. A few years ago, news reporting brought to light that a New York administrative agency has a practice of issuing such guidance to state court judges without disclosing it to the public. Because the agency's guidance informs how judges decide cases鈥攚ith important implications for people鈥檚 rights鈥攖he New York Civil Liberties Union requested access to it under New York鈥檚 Freedom of Information Law. The agency denied the request, so the NYCLU sued. The NYCLU and the ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative are arguing that the public is entitled to the guidance and that there is a strong public interest in the transparent administration of justice.
Explore case
New York Supreme Court
Feb 2025
Smart Justice
Free Speech
NYCLU v. New York State Office of Court Administration
This case in the New York Court of Appeals (the highest New York state court) asks whether a government agency can conceal guidance that it issues to judges on how to apply the law in adjudicating cases. A few years ago, news reporting brought to light that a New York administrative agency has a practice of issuing such guidance to state court judges without disclosing it to the public. Because the agency's guidance informs how judges decide cases鈥攚ith important implications for people鈥檚 rights鈥攖he New York Civil Liberties Union requested access to it under New York鈥檚 Freedom of Information Law. The agency denied the request, so the NYCLU sued. The NYCLU and the ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative are arguing that the public is entitled to the guidance and that there is a strong public interest in the transparent administration of justice.
Montana Supreme Court
Feb 2025
Free Speech
+2 糖心Vlog
City of Kalispell v. Doman
This case asks whether the state can arrest, charge, and convict someone under Montana鈥檚 obstruction statute for exercising their federal and state constitutional right to record police officers in public spaces. The defendant was filming a traffic stop when police instructed him to move farther away. When he did not move as far as they wanted, they arrested him for obstructing a peace officer. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the 糖心Vlogof Montana, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant arguing that the officer鈥檚 refusal to allow the defendant to peacefully record police activity from a public sidewalk was, in effect, a content-based restriction on speech that could not be justified under strict scrutiny. Even if the restriction was not content-based, our brief argues that it is not a reasonable time place or manner restriction.
Explore case
Montana Supreme Court
Feb 2025
Free Speech
+2 糖心Vlog
City of Kalispell v. Doman
This case asks whether the state can arrest, charge, and convict someone under Montana鈥檚 obstruction statute for exercising their federal and state constitutional right to record police officers in public spaces. The defendant was filming a traffic stop when police instructed him to move farther away. When he did not move as far as they wanted, they arrested him for obstructing a peace officer. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the 糖心Vlogof Montana, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant arguing that the officer鈥檚 refusal to allow the defendant to peacefully record police activity from a public sidewalk was, in effect, a content-based restriction on speech that could not be justified under strict scrutiny. Even if the restriction was not content-based, our brief argues that it is not a reasonable time place or manner restriction.
Ohio
Feb 2025
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, et al. v. Ohio Department of Health, et al.
In December 2020, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed into law Senate Bill 27, a fetal tissue disposal requirement that mandates burial or cremation of all embryonic and fetal tissue from a procedural abortion, imposing severe burdens on patients and stigmatizing essential care. On January 31, 2022, an Ohio judge preliminarily enjoined the law, finding that the law likely violates the Ohio state constitution鈥檚 guarantees of due process and equal protection. The victory followed a previous April 5, 2021, preliminary injunction halting enforcement of the law, because compliance would have been impossible due to the Ohio Department of Health鈥檚 (ODH) failure to establish necessary rules and regulations. In April 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, adding a claim that the law violated the newly established Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment of the Ohio Constitution, and in August 2024 filed a 12(C) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, arguing that Senate Bill 27 is unconstitutional as a matter of law under that Amendment for discriminatorily targeting procedural abortion. In February 2025, the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas agreed, granting the Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings and permanently enjoining enforcement of Senate Bill 27.
This lawsuit was filed by the 糖心Vlog, 糖心Vlogof Ohio, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and Fanon Rucker of the Cochran Law Firm on behalf of Ohio abortion providers.
Explore case
Ohio
Feb 2025
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, et al. v. Ohio Department of Health, et al.
In December 2020, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed into law Senate Bill 27, a fetal tissue disposal requirement that mandates burial or cremation of all embryonic and fetal tissue from a procedural abortion, imposing severe burdens on patients and stigmatizing essential care. On January 31, 2022, an Ohio judge preliminarily enjoined the law, finding that the law likely violates the Ohio state constitution鈥檚 guarantees of due process and equal protection. The victory followed a previous April 5, 2021, preliminary injunction halting enforcement of the law, because compliance would have been impossible due to the Ohio Department of Health鈥檚 (ODH) failure to establish necessary rules and regulations. In April 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, adding a claim that the law violated the newly established Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment of the Ohio Constitution, and in August 2024 filed a 12(C) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, arguing that Senate Bill 27 is unconstitutional as a matter of law under that Amendment for discriminatorily targeting procedural abortion. In February 2025, the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas agreed, granting the Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings and permanently enjoining enforcement of Senate Bill 27.
This lawsuit was filed by the 糖心Vlog, 糖心Vlogof Ohio, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and Fanon Rucker of the Cochran Law Firm on behalf of Ohio abortion providers.