Supreme Court Term 2024-2025
We鈥檙e breaking down the cases we've asked the court to consider this term.
Latest Case Updates
Closed (Judgment)
Updated July 18, 2025
Ongoing
Updated July 18, 2025
Closed (Judgment)
Updated July 18, 2025
Closed (Judgment)
Updated July 18, 2025
Featured
U.S. Supreme Court
Jul 2025
Religious Liberty
LGBTQ Rights
Mahmoud v. Taylor
On April 9, 2025, the 红杏视频 and 红杏视频 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
Jul 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.
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.
Georgia Supreme Court
Jun 2025
Voting Rights
Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc. v. Georgia
The 红杏视频 and partner organizations intervened 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 challenged the rule requiring that the number of votes cast be hand counted at the polling place prior to the tabulation of votes. In a critical victory for Georgia voters, in June 2025, the Georgia Supreme Court upheld a lower court鈥檚 decision permanently blocking the rule requiring hand counting of ballots at polling places before tabulation 鈥� a process widely criticized for risking delays, ballot spoliation, and voter disenfranchisement.
U.S. Supreme Court
May 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.
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.
New Hampshire
Mar 2025
Voting Rights
Coalition for Open Democracy v. Scanlan
This lawsuit challenges HB 1569, a new law that will make New Hampshire the only state to require every person to produce documentary proof of citizenship when they register to vote for both state and federal elections. It also challenges HB 1569鈥檚 elimination a preexisting protection for voters鈥攏amely, an affidavit option that allowed voters who faced surprise challenges to their eligibility at the polls to swear to their qualifications and cast a ballot. Accordingly, HB 1569 violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution by placing substantial burdens on New Hampshirites at all stages of the voting process, and will arbitrarily disenfranchise hundreds, if not thousands of qualified voters.
South Carolina Supreme Court
Jan 2025
Voting Rights
League of Women Voters of South Carolina v. Alexander
This case involves a state constitutional challenge to South Carolina鈥檚 2022 congressional redistricting plan, which legislators admit was drawn to entrench a 6-1 Republican majority in the state鈥檚 federal delegation. Plaintiff the League of Women Voters of South Carolina has asked the state鈥檚 Supreme Court to conclude that the congressional map is an unlawful partisan gerrymander that violates the state constitution.
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鈥擲B 1 for short鈥攖hat 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.
All Cases
1,592 Court Cases
Court Case
Sep 2020
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood of Tennessee and North Mississippi et al v. Slatery et al
The 红杏视频, the 红杏视频 of Tennessee, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and the Center for Reproductive Rights challenged a medically unsound 鈥渁bortion reversal鈥� law in Tennessee on behalf of abortion providers in the state: Planned Parenthood of Tennessee and North Mississippi, Knoxville Center for Reproductive Health, Memphis Center for Reproductive Health, and Carafem.
Explore case
Court Case
Sep 2020
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood of Tennessee and North Mississippi et al v. Slatery et al
The 红杏视频, the 红杏视频 of Tennessee, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and the Center for Reproductive Rights challenged a medically unsound 鈥渁bortion reversal鈥� law in Tennessee on behalf of abortion providers in the state: Planned Parenthood of Tennessee and North Mississippi, Knoxville Center for Reproductive Health, Memphis Center for Reproductive Health, and Carafem.
North Carolina
Sep 2020
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood South Atlantic et. al. v. Moore et. al.
Abortion providers in North Carolina and SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective filed litigation on September 3, 2020, challenging several medically unnecessary abortion restrictions that have pushed abortion out of reach in the state and stigmatized essential health care.
Explore case
North Carolina
Sep 2020
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood South Atlantic et. al. v. Moore et. al.
Abortion providers in North Carolina and SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective filed litigation on September 3, 2020, challenging several medically unnecessary abortion restrictions that have pushed abortion out of reach in the state and stigmatized essential health care.
Court Case
Aug 2020
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Hassoun v. Searls 鈥� Challenge to Unlawful Indefinite Detention
Explore case
Court Case
Aug 2020
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Hassoun v. Searls 鈥� Challenge to Unlawful Indefinite Detention
Tennessee
Aug 2020
Voting Rights
Lay v. Goins
The 红杏视频, the 红杏视频 of Tennessee, and Dechert LLP filed a lawsuit seeking to make absentee voting available to all eligible Tennessee voters during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Explore case
Tennessee
Aug 2020
Voting Rights
Lay v. Goins
The 红杏视频, the 红杏视频 of Tennessee, and Dechert LLP filed a lawsuit seeking to make absentee voting available to all eligible Tennessee voters during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Nevada
Aug 2020
Criminal Law Reform
Davis v. Nevada
Every state has a constitutional obligation to provide legal representation to criminal defendants who cannot afford an attorney. Nevada is failing to fulfill this obligation for low income people in its rural counties on a daily basis. Many of these underfunded rural counties lack a true public defense system, and instead mainly rely on flat-fee or defacto flat fee contract attorneys to act as public defenders. These contract attorneys operate without the oversight, resources, or time necessary to ensure they are providing an adequate defense to low income Nevadans. In fact, very often they fail to communicate with clients in basic ways, advocate effectively for pretrial release at bail hearings, or conduct independent investigations necessary to defend their clients. Worse, they at times pressure clients into taking plea bargains against the clients鈥� express wishes. This is not justice.
Explore case
Nevada
Aug 2020
Criminal Law Reform
Davis v. Nevada
Every state has a constitutional obligation to provide legal representation to criminal defendants who cannot afford an attorney. Nevada is failing to fulfill this obligation for low income people in its rural counties on a daily basis. Many of these underfunded rural counties lack a true public defense system, and instead mainly rely on flat-fee or defacto flat fee contract attorneys to act as public defenders. These contract attorneys operate without the oversight, resources, or time necessary to ensure they are providing an adequate defense to low income Nevadans. In fact, very often they fail to communicate with clients in basic ways, advocate effectively for pretrial release at bail hearings, or conduct independent investigations necessary to defend their clients. Worse, they at times pressure clients into taking plea bargains against the clients鈥� express wishes. This is not justice.