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 April 10, 2025
Ongoing Updated April 9, 2025
Ongoing Updated March 24, 2025
Ongoing Updated March 11, 2025
Featured
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 ACLU and co-counsel filed a lawsuit to block the Executive Order as an unconstitutional power grab.
Maryland
Apr 2025

Religious Liberty
LGBTQ Rights
Mahmoud v. McKnight
On April 9, 2025, the ACLU and ACLU of 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 York
Jan 2025

Voting Rights
New York Communities for Change v. Nassau County
Voters of color in Nassau County, N.Y., are no strangers to having to organize to ensure their votes count. But in 2023, the county’s Legislature took vote dilution to new heights. In places like Elmont, Freeport, Inwood, Lakeview, South Valley Stream, New Hyde Park, and Uniondale, the Legislature “cracked and packed” communities of color with the effect of squashing their growing electoral power. But the landmark John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA), enacted in 2022, and the New York Municipal Home Rule Law prohibit New York State and localities from diluting the voting strength and political influence of Black, Latino, and Asian residents.
Louisiana
Jan 2025

Voting Rights
Nairne v. Landry
Nairne v. Landry poses a challenge under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to Louisiana’s House and Senate legislative maps on behalf of plaintiff Black voters and Black voters across the state.
Georgia
Oct 2024

Voting Rights
Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc. v. Georgia
The ACLU and partner organizations have sought to intervene 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 challenge a rule that requires that the number of votes cast be hand counted at the polling place prior to the tabulation of votes. This rule risks delay and spoliation of ballots, putting in danger voters’ rights to have their votes count.
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 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.
Ohio
Jul 2024

Voting Rights
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.
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
1,554 Court Cases

Texas
Apr 2025
LGBTQ Rights
PFLAG v. Office of the Attorney General of Texas
Following a request from the Office of the Attorney General of Texas for records and documents related to its advocacy on behalf of families with transgender youth, PFLAG National sued to block the request in February 2024. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and other LGBTQ legal organizations, PFLAG is also a plaintiff in two lawsuits in Texas relating to gender-affirming care for minors.
Explore case
Texas
Apr 2025

LGBTQ Rights
PFLAG v. Office of the Attorney General of Texas
Following a request from the Office of the Attorney General of Texas for records and documents related to its advocacy on behalf of families with transgender youth, PFLAG National sued to block the request in February 2024. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and other LGBTQ legal organizations, PFLAG is also a plaintiff in two lawsuits in Texas relating to gender-affirming care for minors.

Ohio
Apr 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Moe v. Yost
Two transgender adolescents and their families are challenging Ohio’s House Bill 68, a law passed in January 2024 that prohibits gender-affirming medical care that is widely accepted to treat gender dysphoria, helping alleviate the distress of gender dysphoria and significantly improving patients’ mental health and well-being. Such treatment is supported by leading medical experts and all major U.S. medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Explore case
Ohio
Apr 2025

LGBTQ Rights
Moe v. Yost
Two transgender adolescents and their families are challenging Ohio’s House Bill 68, a law passed in January 2024 that prohibits gender-affirming medical care that is widely accepted to treat gender dysphoria, helping alleviate the distress of gender dysphoria and significantly improving patients’ mental health and well-being. Such treatment is supported by leading medical experts and all major U.S. medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Montana
Apr 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Marquez v. State of Montana
Amelia Marquez is transgender woman and life-long Montanan. John Doe is a transgender man who was born in Montana, but currently lives out of state. Both wish to correct the sex marker on their birth certificates to reflect who they are. However, a law enacted in 2021, Montana Senate Bill 280, sought to prohibit transgender individuals born in Montana from correcting the sex marker listed on their birth certificate without obtaining a court order indicating that their “sex . . . has been changed by surgical procedure.” The ACLU, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP have sued, claiming that SB 280 violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the Montana State Constitution.
Explore case
Montana
Apr 2025

LGBTQ Rights
Marquez v. State of Montana
Amelia Marquez is transgender woman and life-long Montanan. John Doe is a transgender man who was born in Montana, but currently lives out of state. Both wish to correct the sex marker on their birth certificates to reflect who they are. However, a law enacted in 2021, Montana Senate Bill 280, sought to prohibit transgender individuals born in Montana from correcting the sex marker listed on their birth certificate without obtaining a court order indicating that their “sex . . . has been changed by surgical procedure.” The ACLU, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP have sued, claiming that SB 280 violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the Montana State Constitution.

Maryland
Apr 2025
LGBTQ Rights
PFLAG v. Trump
Transgender young adults and families with transgender youth, together with PFLAG National and GLMA, filed a federal legal challenge against a January 2025 executive order from the Trump administration directing federal agencies to withhold funds from medical providers and institutions that provide gender-affirming medical treatments for people under nineteen.
Explore case
Maryland
Apr 2025

LGBTQ Rights
PFLAG v. Trump
Transgender young adults and families with transgender youth, together with PFLAG National and GLMA, filed a federal legal challenge against a January 2025 executive order from the Trump administration directing federal agencies to withhold funds from medical providers and institutions that provide gender-affirming medical treatments for people under nineteen.

Texas
Apr 2025
Immigrants' Rights
AARP v. Trump
Emergency lawsuit filed in federal court to again halt removals under the Alien Enemies Act for people within that court’s judicial district.
Explore case
Texas
Apr 2025

Immigrants' Rights
AARP v. Trump
Emergency lawsuit filed in federal court to again halt removals under the Alien Enemies Act for people within that court’s judicial district.