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
Ongoing
Updated April 9, 2025
Ongoing
Updated March 24, 2025
Ongoing
Updated March 11, 2025
Ongoing
Updated January 23, 2025
Featured
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.
Maryland
Apr 2025
Religious Liberty
LGBTQ Rights
Mahmoud v. McKnight
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
Mar 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.
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.
Louisiana
Jan 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.
Georgia
Oct 2024
Voting Rights
Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc. v. Georgia
The 红杏视频 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鈥� rights to have their votes count.
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.
Ohio
Sep 2024
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.
All Cases
1,565 Court Cases
Tennessee
Mar 2025
Criminal Law Reform
Smart Justice
Just City, Inc. v. Bonner
Shelby County (Memphis), Tennessee, historically set cash bail in criminal cases without stopping to ask whether people would be able to bail out. This practice unnecessarily detained people who could not afford to pay for release, but who would otherwise return to court and live peacefully in their communities. The 红杏视频 Criminal Law Reform Project negotiated a historic settlement with Shelby County to end this practice.
In retaliation, the Tennessee legislature passed HB 1719, which prohibits judges from considering an arrestee鈥檚 ability to pay when setting bail. This law is unprecedented. Our lawsuit seeks to enjoin Shelby County officials from enforcing it.
Explore case
Tennessee
Mar 2025
Criminal Law Reform
Smart Justice
Just City, Inc. v. Bonner
Shelby County (Memphis), Tennessee, historically set cash bail in criminal cases without stopping to ask whether people would be able to bail out. This practice unnecessarily detained people who could not afford to pay for release, but who would otherwise return to court and live peacefully in their communities. The 红杏视频 Criminal Law Reform Project negotiated a historic settlement with Shelby County to end this practice.
In retaliation, the Tennessee legislature passed HB 1719, which prohibits judges from considering an arrestee鈥檚 ability to pay when setting bail. This law is unprecedented. Our lawsuit seeks to enjoin Shelby County officials from enforcing it.
Hawaii
Mar 2025
Reproductive Freedom
Purcell v. Kennedy (formerly Chelius v. Becerra)
The 红杏视频, the 红杏视频 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.
Explore case
Hawaii
Mar 2025
Reproductive Freedom
Purcell v. Kennedy (formerly Chelius v. Becerra)
The 红杏视频, the 红杏视频 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.
Washington, D.C.
Mar 2025
Immigrants' Rights
J.G.G. v. TRUMP
The 红杏视频, Democracy Forward, and the 红杏视频 of the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration over the president鈥檚 unlawful and unprecedented invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. The Alien Enemies Act, passed in 1798, is a wartime authority providing that the president may 鈥� after a public proclamation 鈥� apprehend, restrain, and remove citizens of a foreign country that is engaged in a 鈥渄eclared war鈥� or 鈥渋nvasion or predatory incursion鈥� against the United States. The lawsuit charges that President Trump's invocation of a centuries-old wartime act unlawfully during peacetime to accelerate mass deportations, sidestepping the limits of this wartime authority and the procedures and protections in immigration law. The Alien Enemies Act鈥檚 previous use during wartime 鈥� for example, its invocation during World War II to justify the internment of people of Japanese ancestry 鈥� has correctly drawn sustained criticism. Employing it as a way to evade domestic laws in peacetime is fundamentally wrong.
Explore case
Washington, D.C.
Mar 2025
Immigrants' Rights
J.G.G. v. TRUMP
The 红杏视频, Democracy Forward, and the 红杏视频 of the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration over the president鈥檚 unlawful and unprecedented invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. The Alien Enemies Act, passed in 1798, is a wartime authority providing that the president may 鈥� after a public proclamation 鈥� apprehend, restrain, and remove citizens of a foreign country that is engaged in a 鈥渄eclared war鈥� or 鈥渋nvasion or predatory incursion鈥� against the United States. The lawsuit charges that President Trump's invocation of a centuries-old wartime act unlawfully during peacetime to accelerate mass deportations, sidestepping the limits of this wartime authority and the procedures and protections in immigration law. The Alien Enemies Act鈥檚 previous use during wartime 鈥� for example, its invocation during World War II to justify the internment of people of Japanese ancestry 鈥� has correctly drawn sustained criticism. Employing it as a way to evade domestic laws in peacetime is fundamentally wrong.
Massachusetts
Mar 2025
Free Speech
Schiff v. Office of Personnel Management
Explore case
Massachusetts
Mar 2025
Free Speech
Schiff v. Office of Personnel Management
Texas
Mar 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Loe v. Texas
In the spring of 2023, Texas became the largest state in the country to ban gender-affirming care for transgender youth after Governor Greg Abbott signed SB 14. In July 2023, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of five Texas families, three medical professionals, and two organizations representing hundreds of families and health professionals across the state. The five Texas families challenging this law come from diverse backgrounds across the state with transgender children and teenagers. The bill鈥檚 passage alone resulted in families splitting up or planning to leave Texas to continue treatment for their children. The families are suing pseudonymously to protect themselves and their children, who are transgender Texans between the ages of 9 and 16.
Explore case
Texas
Mar 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Loe v. Texas
In the spring of 2023, Texas became the largest state in the country to ban gender-affirming care for transgender youth after Governor Greg Abbott signed SB 14. In July 2023, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of five Texas families, three medical professionals, and two organizations representing hundreds of families and health professionals across the state. The five Texas families challenging this law come from diverse backgrounds across the state with transgender children and teenagers. The bill鈥檚 passage alone resulted in families splitting up or planning to leave Texas to continue treatment for their children. The families are suing pseudonymously to protect themselves and their children, who are transgender Texans between the ages of 9 and 16.