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 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 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.
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.
Maryland
Apr 2025

Religious Liberty
LGBTQ Rights
Mahmoud v. Taylor
On April 9, 2025, the 糖心Vlogand 糖心Vlogof 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.
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.
Ohio
Sep 2024

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.
All Cases
1,585 Court Cases

U.S. Supreme Court
May 2023
Immigrants' Rights
Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas
Under Title 42, the federal government invoked the COVID pandemic to bar migrants from entering the country without an opportunity to seek asylum. The Trump administration originally invoked Title 42, but it was continued by the Biden administration. This suit challenged the legality of barring refugees from asylum based on Title 42.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
May 2023

Immigrants' Rights
Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas
Under Title 42, the federal government invoked the COVID pandemic to bar migrants from entering the country without an opportunity to seek asylum. The Trump administration originally invoked Title 42, but it was continued by the Biden administration. This suit challenged the legality of barring refugees from asylum based on Title 42.

Court Case
May 2023
Privacy & Technology
National Security
The Warrant Clause in the Digital Age
The information generated by today鈥檚 digital devices and online services reveals private matters far beyond what one could learn from physical analogs. In a series of legal filings and a white paper, available below, the 糖心Vloghas argued that to keep apace with technological developments and adequately protect our privacy, the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement must be interpreted robustly. Seizures and searches of digital data must be cabined to probable cause, limited to specific categories of information relevant to the investigation, and closely overseen by a neutral magistrate.
Explore case
Court Case
May 2023

Privacy & Technology
National Security
The Warrant Clause in the Digital Age
The information generated by today鈥檚 digital devices and online services reveals private matters far beyond what one could learn from physical analogs. In a series of legal filings and a white paper, available below, the 糖心Vloghas argued that to keep apace with technological developments and adequately protect our privacy, the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement must be interpreted robustly. Seizures and searches of digital data must be cabined to probable cause, limited to specific categories of information relevant to the investigation, and closely overseen by a neutral magistrate.

U.S. Supreme Court
May 2023
Free Speech
Gonzalez v. Trevino
This case is about what a plaintiff must demonstrate to sustain allegations that police arrested them in retaliation for First Amendment鈥損rotected expression. While retaliatory arrest plaintiffs generally must show that police lacked probable cause to arrest them, the petitioner in this case correctly argues that a recognized exception to that rule, for cases where police typically exercise discretion not to arrest people, must be robust to protect the free speech of government critics.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
May 2023

Free Speech
Gonzalez v. Trevino
This case is about what a plaintiff must demonstrate to sustain allegations that police arrested them in retaliation for First Amendment鈥損rotected expression. While retaliatory arrest plaintiffs generally must show that police lacked probable cause to arrest them, the petitioner in this case correctly argues that a recognized exception to that rule, for cases where police typically exercise discretion not to arrest people, must be robust to protect the free speech of government critics.

Florida
Apr 2023
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida, et al. v. State of Florida, et al.
On January 23, 2023, the Florida Supreme Court accepted a request by abortion providers to hear arguments in their case against House Bill 5 (HB 5), a ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy that threatens to put doctors in jail for providing essential care beyond that point. The move comes after several court rulings closed off meaningful legal avenues to block the law. While providers鈥 request for the court to hear arguments in the case was granted, the justices declined to immediately block HB 5 while the lawsuit proceeds, leaving the ban in place for now.
Explore case
Florida
Apr 2023

Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida, et al. v. State of Florida, et al.
On January 23, 2023, the Florida Supreme Court accepted a request by abortion providers to hear arguments in their case against House Bill 5 (HB 5), a ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy that threatens to put doctors in jail for providing essential care beyond that point. The move comes after several court rulings closed off meaningful legal avenues to block the law. While providers鈥 request for the court to hear arguments in the case was granted, the justices declined to immediately block HB 5 while the lawsuit proceeds, leaving the ban in place for now.

Arizona
Apr 2023
Reproductive Freedom
Paul A. Isaacson, M.D., et al. v. Mark Brnovich, et al.
Two Arizona physicians, the Arizona Medical Association, Arizona National Council of Jewish Women, and the Arizona National Organization of Women are challenging two abortion restrictions passed in Arizona in April 2021. One, the 鈥渞eason鈥 ban, is a ban on鈥痑bortions鈥痓ased on a patient鈥檚 reason for seeking鈥痮ne, including鈥痺hen the abortion could be deemed due to a fetal condition or diagnosis.鈥疶his ban targets pregnant people already facing complex considerations regarding fetal genetic conditions and drives a wedge between a patient and their provider.
Explore case
Arizona
Apr 2023

Reproductive Freedom
Paul A. Isaacson, M.D., et al. v. Mark Brnovich, et al.
Two Arizona physicians, the Arizona Medical Association, Arizona National Council of Jewish Women, and the Arizona National Organization of Women are challenging two abortion restrictions passed in Arizona in April 2021. One, the 鈥渞eason鈥 ban, is a ban on鈥痑bortions鈥痓ased on a patient鈥檚 reason for seeking鈥痮ne, including鈥痺hen the abortion could be deemed due to a fetal condition or diagnosis.鈥疶his ban targets pregnant people already facing complex considerations regarding fetal genetic conditions and drives a wedge between a patient and their provider.