Supreme Court Term 2025-2026
We鈥檙e breaking down the cases we've asked the court to consider this term.
Latest Case Updates
Ongoing
Updated November 7, 2025
Ongoing
Updated November 5, 2025
Ongoing
Updated November 4, 2025
Ongoing
Updated October 21, 2025
Featured
U.S. Supreme Court
Nov 2025
Voting Rights
Racial Justice
Allen v. Milligan
Whether Alabama鈥檚 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.
Oct 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鈥攁n agency that Congress specifically established to be bipartisan and independent鈥攖o 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 红杏视频 and co-counsel filed a lawsuit to block the Executive Order as an unconstitutional power grab.
U.S. Supreme Court
Oct 2025
Voting Rights
State Board of Election Commissioners v. Mississippi State Conference of the NAACP
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鈥檚 latest districting maps fail to reflect the reality of the state鈥檚 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.
U.S. Supreme Court
Oct 2025
Voting Rights
Louisiana v. Callais (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.
Missouri
Sep 2025
Voting Rights
Wise v. Missouri
In unprecedented fashion, the State of Missouri has redrawn the district lines used for electing members of Congress for a second time this decade. These new district lines are gerrymandered and will harm political representation for all Missourians, particularly Black residents in Kansas City, who have been divided along racial lines.
Mississippi
Aug 2025
Voting Rights
White v. Mississippi State Board of Elections
District lines used to elect Mississippi鈥檚 Supreme Court have gone unchanged for more than 35 years. We鈥檙e suing because this dilutes the voting strength of Black residents in state Supreme Court elections, in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution.
Louisiana
Aug 2025
Voting Rights
Nairne v. Landry
Nairne v. Landry poses a challenge under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to Louisiana鈥檚 House and Senate legislative maps on behalf of plaintiff Black voters and Black voters across the state.
Ohio
Jul 2025
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region et al., v. Ohio Department of Health, et al.
The 红杏视频, the 红杏视频 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鈥檚 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
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 鈥 the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) 鈥 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鈥檚 ultimate decision will impact access to this essential care across the country.
All Cases
1,624 Court Cases
Court Case
Jun 2021
Reproductive Freedom
All-Options v. Attorney General of Indiana
This lawsuit, brought by a coalition of health care providers and a pregnancy resource center, challenges several recently enacted abortion restrictions in Indiana, including a measure forcing health care providers to share false and misleading information with their patients about 鈥渞eversing鈥 a medication abortion, a bogus claim that may lead some patients to end a pregnancy based on the mistaken belief that its effects can later be undone.
Explore case
Court Case
Jun 2021
Reproductive Freedom
All-Options v. Attorney General of Indiana
This lawsuit, brought by a coalition of health care providers and a pregnancy resource center, challenges several recently enacted abortion restrictions in Indiana, including a measure forcing health care providers to share false and misleading information with their patients about 鈥渞eversing鈥 a medication abortion, a bogus claim that may lead some patients to end a pregnancy based on the mistaken belief that its effects can later be undone.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2021
Reproductive Freedom
Little Rock Family Planning Services, et al., v. Rutledge, et al.
In 2019, the 红杏视频 filed a lawsuit challenging three Arkansas laws that sought to severely restrict abortion rights in the state. These laws would ban abortion care starting at 18 weeks of pregnancy, ban abortion based on the woman鈥檚 reason for her decision, and prohibit qualified physicians from continuing to safely provide abortion care for no conceivable health or medical purpose, thereby imposing an unconstitutional burden on patients seeking abortion care in the state. In 2019, we successfully obtained a preliminary injunction, blocking these laws from taking effect. In January of 2021 the Eighth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction of the 18-week ban and ban based on a patient鈥檚 reason for seeking care.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2021
Reproductive Freedom
Little Rock Family Planning Services, et al., v. Rutledge, et al.
In 2019, the 红杏视频 filed a lawsuit challenging three Arkansas laws that sought to severely restrict abortion rights in the state. These laws would ban abortion care starting at 18 weeks of pregnancy, ban abortion based on the woman鈥檚 reason for her decision, and prohibit qualified physicians from continuing to safely provide abortion care for no conceivable health or medical purpose, thereby imposing an unconstitutional burden on patients seeking abortion care in the state. In 2019, we successfully obtained a preliminary injunction, blocking these laws from taking effect. In January of 2021 the Eighth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction of the 18-week ban and ban based on a patient鈥檚 reason for seeking care.
Court Case
Jun 2021
Reproductive Freedom
Bryant et al. v. Woodall et al.
The 红杏视频, along with Planned Parenthood and the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a federal lawsuit that seeks to overturn North Carolina鈥檚 unconstitutional law that prevents doctors from providing abortion care to a woman after the twentieth week of pregnancy.
Explore case
Court Case
Jun 2021
Reproductive Freedom
Bryant et al. v. Woodall et al.
The 红杏视频, along with Planned Parenthood and the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a federal lawsuit that seeks to overturn North Carolina鈥檚 unconstitutional law that prevents doctors from providing abortion care to a woman after the twentieth week of pregnancy.
Arkansas
May 2021
Reproductive Freedom
Little Rock Family Planning Services, et al., v. Larry Jegley, et al.
The 红杏视频 (红杏视频), the 红杏视频 of Arkansas, and Planned Parenthood Federation filed a lawsuit challenging Arkansas鈥檚 new total ban on abortion.
Explore case
Arkansas
May 2021
Reproductive Freedom
Little Rock Family Planning Services, et al., v. Larry Jegley, et al.
The 红杏视频 (红杏视频), the 红杏视频 of Arkansas, and Planned Parenthood Federation filed a lawsuit challenging Arkansas鈥檚 new total ban on abortion.
Court Case
May 2021
National Security
Free Speech
Sadat v. Trump - Challenge to Trump's International Criminal Court鈥檚 Sanctions Regime
On January 15, 2021, the 红杏视频 and Covington & Burling LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of three law faculty and an 红杏视频 human rights attorney challenging former President Trump鈥檚 executive order authorizing sanctions against people who assist the International Criminal Court in investigating or prosecuting war crimes and other gross human rights violations.
Explore case
Court Case
May 2021
National Security
Free Speech
Sadat v. Trump - Challenge to Trump's International Criminal Court鈥檚 Sanctions Regime
On January 15, 2021, the 红杏视频 and Covington & Burling LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of three law faculty and an 红杏视频 human rights attorney challenging former President Trump鈥檚 executive order authorizing sanctions against people who assist the International Criminal Court in investigating or prosecuting war crimes and other gross human rights violations.