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 October 15, 2024
Ongoing
Updated October 11, 2024
Ongoing
Updated September 27, 2024
Ongoing
Updated September 12, 2024
Featured
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.
Nebraska Supreme Court
Oct 2024
Voting Rights
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.
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.
Michigan
Sep 2024
Voting Rights
ACLU of Michigan v. Froman
Michigan requires boards of county canvassers to certify the results of an election within 14 days after the election based on the total number of votes reported from each location. The law doesn't allow them to withhold certification. Kalamazoo Board of County Canvassers member, Robert Froman, has made clear that he would decline to certify the November 2024 election under certain circumstances. This lawsuit asks the state's courts to make clear that Mr. Froman is duty bound to certify the election based on the number of votes reported.
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.
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2024
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.
South Carolina Supreme Court
Jul 2024
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.
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.
U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 2024
Reproductive Freedom
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.
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
1,486 Court Cases
Rhode Island
Sep 2016
Voting Rights
Davidson v. City of Cranston
Cranston, Rhode Island residents joined the ACLU of Rhode Island to sue the City of Cranston, charging that the 2012 redistricting plan for the City Council and School Committee violates the one person, one vote principle of the U.S. Constitution by counting incarcerated people in their prison location as if they were all residents of Cranston.
Explore case
Rhode Island
Sep 2016
Voting Rights
Davidson v. City of Cranston
Cranston, Rhode Island residents joined the ACLU of Rhode Island to sue the City of Cranston, charging that the 2012 redistricting plan for the City Council and School Committee violates the one person, one vote principle of the U.S. Constitution by counting incarcerated people in their prison location as if they were all residents of Cranston.
Sep 2016
Immigrants' Rights
J.E.F.M. v. Lynch
The American Civil Liberties Union, American Immigration Council, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Public Counsel, and K&L Gates LLP filed a nationwide class-action lawsuit on behalf of thousands of children who are challenging the federal government's failure to provide them with legal representation in deportation hearings.
Explore case
Sep 2016
Immigrants' Rights
J.E.F.M. v. Lynch
The American Civil Liberties Union, American Immigration Council, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Public Counsel, and K&L Gates LLP filed a nationwide class-action lawsuit on behalf of thousands of children who are challenging the federal government's failure to provide them with legal representation in deportation hearings.
Texas
Aug 2016
LGBTQ Rights
Texas v. U.S.
Five leading national civil and LGBT rights organizations filed an amicus (friend of the court) brief in a multi-state lawsuit challenging the Federal Government issued guidance regarding public school districts’ responsibility to allow transgender students to use the same restrooms as other students.
Explore case
Texas
Aug 2016
LGBTQ Rights
Texas v. U.S.
Five leading national civil and LGBT rights organizations filed an amicus (friend of the court) brief in a multi-state lawsuit challenging the Federal Government issued guidance regarding public school districts’ responsibility to allow transgender students to use the same restrooms as other students.
Illinois
Jul 2016
LGBTQ Rights
Students and Parents for Privacy v. U.S. Department of Education (Township District 211)
The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Illinois, and Mayer Brown LLP filed a motion to intervene on behalf of Students A, B, and C, through their Parents and Legal Guardians, and the Illinois Safe School Alliance. The intervention comes after an effort to reverse an agreement reached between suburban Chicago High School District 211 and the U.S. Department of Education after a complaint filed by Student A, a female student in the District, resulted in her being permitted to use the locker room consistent with her gender identity. The lawsuit, filed by District 211 community members labeling themselves as Students and Parents for Privacy, seeks to block Student A and other transgender students from using restrooms and locker rooms that are consistent with their gender identity.
Explore case
Illinois
Jul 2016
LGBTQ Rights
Students and Parents for Privacy v. U.S. Department of Education (Township District 211)
The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Illinois, and Mayer Brown LLP filed a motion to intervene on behalf of Students A, B, and C, through their Parents and Legal Guardians, and the Illinois Safe School Alliance. The intervention comes after an effort to reverse an agreement reached between suburban Chicago High School District 211 and the U.S. Department of Education after a complaint filed by Student A, a female student in the District, resulted in her being permitted to use the locker room consistent with her gender identity. The lawsuit, filed by District 211 community members labeling themselves as Students and Parents for Privacy, seeks to block Student A and other transgender students from using restrooms and locker rooms that are consistent with their gender identity.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jul 2016
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest et al. v. State of Alaska
On July 22, 2016,The Alaska Supreme Court struck down the requirement, finding that there was no basis on which to distinguish between minors seeking abortion and minors carrying to term – burdening only minors seeking abortion therefore violates the equal protection guarantees of the Alaska Constitution.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jul 2016
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest et al. v. State of Alaska
On July 22, 2016,The Alaska Supreme Court struck down the requirement, finding that there was no basis on which to distinguish between minors seeking abortion and minors carrying to term – burdening only minors seeking abortion therefore violates the equal protection guarantees of the Alaska Constitution.