Supreme Court Term 2023-2024
We’re breaking down the cases we've asked the court to consider this term.
Latest Case Updates
Ongoing
Updated August 19, 2024
Ongoing
Updated August 12, 2024
Closed (Judgment)
Updated August 9, 2024
Ongoing
Updated July 30, 2024
Featured
Minnesota Supreme Court
Aug 2024
![Minnesota](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/04/Minnesota.jpg)
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Hunt
The ACLU and ACLU of Minnesota intervened as defendants to block an attempt by Minnesota Voters Alliance -- a private plaintiff group -- to challenge a law that restored voting rights to individuals convicted of a felony while they are "not incarcerated for the offense" and "including any period when they are on work release."
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jul 2024
![Louisiana](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/03/Depositphotos_466919260_S-600x400.jpg)
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.
Status: Ongoing
View case
Nebraska Supreme Court
Jul 2024
![Nebraska vote](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/07/Vote-Nebraska-600x400.jpg)
Spung v. Evnen
Less than four months before the November 2024 presidential election, the Nebraska Secretary of State issued a directive embracing a non-binding opinion issued by the state Attorney General that would essentially reinstate permanent felony disenfranchisement and re-disenfranchise tens of thousands of Nebraska citizens. This directive is violative of both the Nebraska Constitution and several state statutes, and urgent relief is needed to avoid mass disenfranchisement of an entire class of Nebraska citizens.
Status: Ongoing
View case
South Carolina Supreme Court
Jul 2024
![South CArolina Supreme](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/07/GQStblrWIAAVtQW-600x315.jpg)
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.
Status: Ongoing
View case
Ohio
Jul 2024
![dis](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/03/disability-600x400.jpg)
League of Women Voters of Ohio v. LaRose
In Ohio, HB 458 makes it a felony for any person who is not an election official or mail carrier to return an absentee voter's ballot—including voters with disabilities—unless the person assisting falls within an unduly narrow list of relatives. We are challenging the law because it violates Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) by making it exceedingly difficult for voters with disabilities to cast their ballots.
Status: Ongoing
View case
Mississippi
Jul 2024
![Mississippi](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/02/MS-Redistricting-Maps-Header-600x400.jpg)
Mississippi State Conference of the NAACP v. State Board of Election Commissioners
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.
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
Ohio
May 2024
![Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region et al., v. Ohio Department of Health, et al.](https://www.aclu.dev/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region et al., v. Ohio Department of Health, et al.
The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of 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.
Status: Ongoing
View case
Texas
Apr 2024
![Crystal Mason](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/03/Crystal_Mason_1160x650-600x336.png)
Crystal Mason v. State of Texas
Crystal Mason thought she was performing her civic duty by filling out a provisional ballot in the 2016 election. She didn't know it would land her a five-year prison sentence, upending her family and the life she had built. At the time, Ms. Mason was on federal supervised release, a preliminary period of freedom for individuals who have served their full time of incarceration in federal prison. Ms. Mason didn’t know, and nobody told her, that the state considered her ineligible to vote while on supervised release. Because her name didn’t appear on voter rolls, she filed a provisional ballot, consistent with federal law. The state never counted her ballot but has still sought to send her to prison for an innocent mistake.
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 2024
![Idaho and Moyle, et al. v. United States](https://www.aclu.dev/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
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 — the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) — 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’s ultimate decision will impact access to this essential care across the country.
Status: Ongoing
View case
Stay informed about our latest work in the courts.
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU's privacy statement.
All Cases
1,452 Court Cases
Maryland Supreme Court
Jun 2024
![Moira Akers v. State](https://www.aclu.dev/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Moira Akers v. State
This case concerns whether prosecutors can admit evidence that a person exercised their right to decide whether to terminate their pregnancy as proof of intent for murder. Here, the prosecution’s use of this evidence at Moira Akers’ trial denied her due process, resulting in an unjust conviction and a 30-year prison term. The ACLU’s Abortion Criminal Defense Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Maryland, filed an amicus brief arguing that allowing admission of this evidence not only violated Ms. Akers’ rights but chills the right of all Marylanders to freely decide whether to continue or end their pregnancies. Ms. Akers’ case was granted certiorari and is now before the Maryland Supreme Court.
Status: Ongoing
View case
![Moira Akers v. State](https://www.aclu.dev/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Maryland Supreme Court
Reproductive Freedom
Moira Akers v. State
This case concerns whether prosecutors can admit evidence that a person exercised their right to decide whether to terminate their pregnancy as proof of intent for murder. Here, the prosecution’s use of this evidence at Moira Akers’ trial denied her due process, resulting in an unjust conviction and a 30-year prison term. The ACLU’s Abortion Criminal Defense Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Maryland, filed an amicus brief arguing that allowing admission of this evidence not only violated Ms. Akers’ rights but chills the right of all Marylanders to freely decide whether to continue or end their pregnancies. Ms. Akers’ case was granted certiorari and is now before the Maryland Supreme Court.
Jun 2024
Status: Ongoing
View case
Jun 2024
![Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security](https://www.aclu.dev/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Status: Ongoing
View case
![Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security](https://www.aclu.dev/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Immigrants' Rights
Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Jun 2024
Status: Ongoing
View case
Arizona
Jun 2024
![State v. Mitcham](https://www.aclu.dev/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
State v. Mitcham
The ACLU and the ACLU of Arizona filed amicus briefs before the Arizona Court of Appeals and the Arizona Supreme Court arguing that the government cannot genetically test any biological material it already has in its possession—whether that’s blood taken from newborns to test for diseases or swabs collected from sexual assault survivors—to investigate the donors for a crime without first obtaining a warrant. This filing is part of the broader fight to preserve the privacy of our sensitive genetic information.
Status: Ongoing
View case
![State v. Mitcham](https://www.aclu.dev/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Arizona
Privacy & Technology
State v. Mitcham
The ACLU and the ACLU of Arizona filed amicus briefs before the Arizona Court of Appeals and the Arizona Supreme Court arguing that the government cannot genetically test any biological material it already has in its possession—whether that’s blood taken from newborns to test for diseases or swabs collected from sexual assault survivors—to investigate the donors for a crime without first obtaining a warrant. This filing is part of the broader fight to preserve the privacy of our sensitive genetic information.
Jun 2024
Status: Ongoing
View case
Tennessee
Jun 2024
![Photo of Luc Esquivel, a 14-year-old boy in a blue sweater and glasses with a golf club over his shoulder. Luc is standing in a green yard.](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/Luc_ACLU-0029-600x400.jpg)
L.E. v Lee
Luc Esquivel is a 15-year-old sophomore at Farragut High School in Knoxville, TN who has been looking forward to trying out for the boys’ golf team. That aspiration was derailed when the Tennessee legislature passed and Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee signed into law SB 228, which bans transgender middle and high school students from participating on interscholastic sports teams that match their gender. Luc and his family have sued the state of Tennessee.
Status: Closed
View case
![Photo of Luc Esquivel, a 14-year-old boy in a blue sweater and glasses with a golf club over his shoulder. Luc is standing in a green yard.](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/Luc_ACLU-0029-600x400.jpg)
Tennessee
LGBTQ Rights
L.E. v Lee
Luc Esquivel is a 15-year-old sophomore at Farragut High School in Knoxville, TN who has been looking forward to trying out for the boys’ golf team. That aspiration was derailed when the Tennessee legislature passed and Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee signed into law SB 228, which bans transgender middle and high school students from participating on interscholastic sports teams that match their gender. Luc and his family have sued the state of Tennessee.
Jun 2024
Status: Closed
View case
Jun 2024
![A pair of hands holding a cell phone at night with street lights in the background.](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2020/12/WEB20-Holding-Cellphone-Dark-SocialShare-1200x628-1-600x314.jpg)
United States v. Hunt
This case concerns whether a warrant is required to search the information stored on a cell phone when the device itself may be properly deemed “abandoned.”
View case
![A pair of hands holding a cell phone at night with street lights in the background.](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2020/12/WEB20-Holding-Cellphone-Dark-SocialShare-1200x628-1-600x314.jpg)
Privacy & Technology
United States v. Hunt
This case concerns whether a warrant is required to search the information stored on a cell phone when the device itself may be properly deemed “abandoned.”
Jun 2024
View case