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 July 29, 2025
Closed (Judgment)
Updated July 25, 2025
Closed (Judgment)
Updated July 24, 2025
Closed (Judgment)
Updated July 21, 2025
Featured
Mississippi
Aug 2025
Voting Rights
White v. Mississippi State Board of Elections
District lines used to elect Mississippi’s Supreme Court have gone unchanged for more than 35 years. We’re 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’s House and Senate legislative maps on behalf of plaintiff Black voters and Black voters across the state.
Washington, D.C.
Aug 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 ºìÐÓÊÓƵ and co-counsel filed a lawsuit to block the Executive Order as an unconstitutional power grab.
U.S. Supreme Court
Aug 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 ºìÐÓÊÓƵ, the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ 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.
Georgia Supreme Court
Jun 2025
Voting Rights
Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc. v. Georgia
The ºìÐÓÊÓƵ 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’s decision permanently blocking the rule requiring hand counting of ballots at polling places before tabulation — 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’s 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.
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’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.
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.
All Cases
1,603 Court Cases
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’ 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’ express wishes. This is not justice.
Court Case
Aug 2020
Voting Rights
Collins v. Adams
The ºìÐÓÊÓƵ, ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of Kentucky, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and Covington & Burling filed a federal lawsuit over Kentucky’s failure to take appropriate action to ensure eligible voters can safely cast a ballot in the November general election given the COVID-19 outbreak.
Explore case
Court Case
Aug 2020
Voting Rights
Collins v. Adams
The ºìÐÓÊÓƵ, ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of Kentucky, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and Covington & Burling filed a federal lawsuit over Kentucky’s failure to take appropriate action to ensure eligible voters can safely cast a ballot in the November general election given the COVID-19 outbreak.
Puerto Rico
Aug 2020
Voting Rights
Ocasio v. Comisión Estatal de Elecciones
The ºìÐÓÊÓƵ, ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of Puerto Rico, and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Puerto Rico Election Commission’s failure to implement steps to ensure voters over 60 can safely cast a ballot in the November general election in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Explore case
Puerto Rico
Aug 2020
Voting Rights
Ocasio v. Comisión Estatal de Elecciones
The ºìÐÓÊÓƵ, ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of Puerto Rico, and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Puerto Rico Election Commission’s failure to implement steps to ensure voters over 60 can safely cast a ballot in the November general election in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Court Case
Aug 2020
Voting Rights
League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Benson
The ºìÐÓÊÓƵ, ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of Michigan, Arnold & Porter, and Goodman Acker filed a lawsuit on May 22, 2020, challenging Michigan’s requirement that absentee ballots be received by Election Day in order to be counted.
Explore case
Court Case
Aug 2020
Voting Rights
League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Benson
The ºìÐÓÊÓƵ, ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of Michigan, Arnold & Porter, and Goodman Acker filed a lawsuit on May 22, 2020, challenging Michigan’s requirement that absentee ballots be received by Election Day in order to be counted.
Court Case
Aug 2020
Privacy & Technology
Guan v. Wolf
The ºìÐÓÊÓƵ, the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of San Diego, and the New York Civil Liberties Union have filed a lawsuit against U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on behalf of five journalists who were subject to unlawful questioning at the U.S. border. The lawsuit claims that border officers violated the First Amendment.
Explore case
Court Case
Aug 2020
Privacy & Technology
Guan v. Wolf
The ºìÐÓÊÓƵ, the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of San Diego, and the New York Civil Liberties Union have filed a lawsuit against U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on behalf of five journalists who were subject to unlawful questioning at the U.S. border. The lawsuit claims that border officers violated the First Amendment.