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
Jul 2022
Reproductive Freedom
SisterSong v. State of Georgia
Georgia physicians, reproductive health care providers, and advocates filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Fulton County on June 26, bringing a state constitutional challenge against H.B. 481, a law banning abortion at approximately six weeks of pregnancy — just two weeks after a person’s first missed period and before many people even know they are pregnant. This lawsuit comes one week after a federal appeals court allowed Georgia’s six-week ban to take effect for the first time since it was passed in 2019, causing an immediate, devastating crisis as clinics were forced to turn away patients in waiting rooms across the state and to cancel many upcoming appointments.
Explore case
Court Case
Jul 2022

Reproductive Freedom
SisterSong v. State of Georgia
Georgia physicians, reproductive health care providers, and advocates filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Fulton County on June 26, bringing a state constitutional challenge against H.B. 481, a law banning abortion at approximately six weeks of pregnancy — just two weeks after a person’s first missed period and before many people even know they are pregnant. This lawsuit comes one week after a federal appeals court allowed Georgia’s six-week ban to take effect for the first time since it was passed in 2019, causing an immediate, devastating crisis as clinics were forced to turn away patients in waiting rooms across the state and to cancel many upcoming appointments.

Georgia
Jul 2022
LGBTQ Rights
Thomas et al v. Georgia Department of Community Health et al
Shon Thomas and Gwendolyn Cheney are two Black transgender women enrolled in Georgia Medicaid who have been unable to access gender-affirming surgical care. They have sued the state, alleging that denying access to gender-affirming surgeries under Medicaid is a violation of the U.S. Constitution, the Affordable Care Act, and the Medicaid Act. They are represented by the ÌÇÐÄVlogand the ÌÇÐÄVlogof Georgia.
Explore case
Georgia
Jul 2022

LGBTQ Rights
Thomas et al v. Georgia Department of Community Health et al
Shon Thomas and Gwendolyn Cheney are two Black transgender women enrolled in Georgia Medicaid who have been unable to access gender-affirming surgical care. They have sued the state, alleging that denying access to gender-affirming surgeries under Medicaid is a violation of the U.S. Constitution, the Affordable Care Act, and the Medicaid Act. They are represented by the ÌÇÐÄVlogand the ÌÇÐÄVlogof Georgia.

New York
Jul 2022
Privacy & Technology
ÌÇÐÄVlogv. Department of Homeland Security (commercial location data FOIA)
In December 2020, the ÌÇÐÄVlogand NYCLU filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking records from Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and other parts of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) about their practice of purchasing cell phone location data collected from smartphone apps.
Explore case
New York
Jul 2022

Privacy & Technology
ÌÇÐÄVlogv. Department of Homeland Security (commercial location data FOIA)
In December 2020, the ÌÇÐÄVlogand NYCLU filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking records from Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and other parts of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) about their practice of purchasing cell phone location data collected from smartphone apps.

Ohio
Jul 2022
Reproductive Freedom
Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost
The ÌÇÐÄVlog, ÌÇÐÄVlogof Ohio, and Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit in June of 2019 challenging an Ohio law banning abortion as early as six weeks into pregnancy. This law would effectively eliminate abortion access in the state. In July of 2019, we successfully obtained a preliminary injunction, blocking this law from taking effect. On July 7, 2022, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization reversing Roe v. Wade, the case was dismissed without prejudice.
Explore case
Ohio
Jul 2022

Reproductive Freedom
Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost
The ÌÇÐÄVlog, ÌÇÐÄVlogof Ohio, and Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit in June of 2019 challenging an Ohio law banning abortion as early as six weeks into pregnancy. This law would effectively eliminate abortion access in the state. In July of 2019, we successfully obtained a preliminary injunction, blocking this law from taking effect. On July 7, 2022, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization reversing Roe v. Wade, the case was dismissed without prejudice.

U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2022
Reproductive Freedom
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
The case concerns the constitutionality of a Mississippi law prohibiting abortions after the fifteenth week of pregnancy. The state used the case as a vehicle to ask the Supreme Court to take away the federal constitutional right to abortion it first recognized 50 years before in Roe v. Wade. On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States accepted the state’s invitation and overturned Roe eliminating the federal constitutional right to abortion.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2022

Reproductive Freedom
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
The case concerns the constitutionality of a Mississippi law prohibiting abortions after the fifteenth week of pregnancy. The state used the case as a vehicle to ask the Supreme Court to take away the federal constitutional right to abortion it first recognized 50 years before in Roe v. Wade. On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States accepted the state’s invitation and overturned Roe eliminating the federal constitutional right to abortion.