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
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2024
![Henderson v. State of Texas](https://www.aclu.dev/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Henderson v. State of Texas
This case is about whether states can hold people criminally liable for obstructing a passageway based solely on their participation in a peaceful march on public sidewalks and streets, without evidence that they knowingly or intentionally obstructed any passageway themselves or directed, authorized, ratified, or intended that others do so. Representing three protesters who were convicted under such circumstances in Texas state court, our petition urges the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm that, under settled constitutional law, the answer is “No.”
Status: Ongoing
View case
![Henderson v. State of Texas](https://www.aclu.dev/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
U.S. Supreme Court
Free Speech
Henderson v. State of Texas
This case is about whether states can hold people criminally liable for obstructing a passageway based solely on their participation in a peaceful march on public sidewalks and streets, without evidence that they knowingly or intentionally obstructed any passageway themselves or directed, authorized, ratified, or intended that others do so. Representing three protesters who were convicted under such circumstances in Texas state court, our petition urges the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm that, under settled constitutional law, the answer is “No.”
Jun 2024
Status: Ongoing
View case
Texas
Jun 2024
![Gonzalez v. Ramirez et al.](https://www.aclu.dev/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Gonzalez v. Ramirez et al.
Although Texas law clearly prohibits prosecuting people for terminating their pregnancies, Starr County officials indicted, arrested, and jailed Lizelle Gonzalez for having an abortion. The ACLU’s Abortion Criminal Defense Initiative and Criminal Law Reform Project, alongside the ACLU of Texas and south Texas firm Garza Martinez, are representing Ms. Gonzalez in a lawsuit against Starr County and local officials based on violations of Ms. Gonzalez’s constitutional rights.
Status: Ongoing
View case
![Gonzalez v. Ramirez et al.](https://www.aclu.dev/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Texas
Criminal Law Reform
+3 Issues
Gonzalez v. Ramirez et al.
Although Texas law clearly prohibits prosecuting people for terminating their pregnancies, Starr County officials indicted, arrested, and jailed Lizelle Gonzalez for having an abortion. The ACLU’s Abortion Criminal Defense Initiative and Criminal Law Reform Project, alongside the ACLU of Texas and south Texas firm Garza Martinez, are representing Ms. Gonzalez in a lawsuit against Starr County and local officials based on violations of Ms. Gonzalez’s constitutional rights.
Jun 2024
Status: Ongoing
View case
Hawaii
Jun 2024
![Woman holding "Abortion Access" poster at rally](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2019/09/web16-blog-scotusrepro-1160x768-600x397.jpg)
Purcell v. Becerra (formerly Chelius v. Becerra)
The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Hawaii, and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholar LLP, are challenging a U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) restriction that severely limits where and how patients can access mifepristone, a safe and effective medication used for early abortion and miscarriage care.
Status: Ongoing
View case
![Woman holding "Abortion Access" poster at rally](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2019/09/web16-blog-scotusrepro-1160x768-600x397.jpg)
Hawaii
Reproductive Freedom
Purcell v. Becerra (formerly Chelius v. Becerra)
The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Hawaii, and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholar LLP, are challenging a U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) restriction that severely limits where and how patients can access mifepristone, a safe and effective medication used for early abortion and miscarriage care.
Jun 2024
Status: Ongoing
View case
Louisiana
Jun 2024
![Louisiana](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/03/Depositphotos_466919260_S-600x400.jpg)
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.
Status: Ongoing
View case
![Louisiana](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/03/Depositphotos_466919260_S-600x400.jpg)
Louisiana
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.
Jun 2024
Status: Ongoing
View case
Louisiana
Jun 2024
![Rev. Roake v. Brumley](https://www.aclu.dev/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Rev. Roake v. Brumley
On June 24, 2024, a multi-faith group of nine Louisiana families with children in public schools filed a federal-court lawsuit in Louisiana, challenging House Bill No. 71 (“H.B. 71”), a new state law that requires every elementary, secondary, and postsecondary public school in the state to permanently display an official version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. The families are represented by the ACLU, the ACLU of Louisiana, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP serving as pro bono counsel. The complaint alleges that H.B. 71 violates both the separation of church and state, as protected by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Status: Ongoing
View case
![Rev. Roake v. Brumley](https://www.aclu.dev/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Louisiana
Religious Liberty
Rev. Roake v. Brumley
On June 24, 2024, a multi-faith group of nine Louisiana families with children in public schools filed a federal-court lawsuit in Louisiana, challenging House Bill No. 71 (“H.B. 71”), a new state law that requires every elementary, secondary, and postsecondary public school in the state to permanently display an official version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. The families are represented by the ACLU, the ACLU of Louisiana, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP serving as pro bono counsel. The complaint alleges that H.B. 71 violates both the separation of church and state, as protected by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Jun 2024
Status: Ongoing
View case