Supreme Court Term 2025-2026
We’re breaking down the cases we've asked the court to consider this term.
Latest Case Updates
Ongoing
Updated November 10, 2025
Ongoing
Updated November 7, 2025
Ongoing
Updated November 5, 2025
Ongoing
Updated November 4, 2025
Featured
U.S. Supreme Court
Nov 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.
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—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 ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ 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’s latest districting maps fail to reflect the reality of the state’s 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’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.
Ohio
Jul 2025
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region et al., v. Ohio Department of Health, et al.
The ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ, the ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ 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
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
1,625 Court Cases
Pennsylvania
Jan 2018
Prisoners' Rights
Reid v. Wetzel
The ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ, the ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ of Pennsylvania, the Abolitionist Law Center, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, and Kairys, Rudovsky, Messing, Feinberg & Lin LLP filed a class action lawsuit against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Department of Corrections (DOC) for holding death-sentenced prisoners in permanent, degrading, and inhumane solitary confinement. These prisoners have suffered under the DOC’s cruel and baseless policies and practices, confined in solitary until they die by execution, die of natural causes while awaiting execution, or have their capital sentence overturned.
Explore case
Pennsylvania
Jan 2018
Prisoners' Rights
Reid v. Wetzel
The ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ, the ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ of Pennsylvania, the Abolitionist Law Center, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, and Kairys, Rudovsky, Messing, Feinberg & Lin LLP filed a class action lawsuit against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Department of Corrections (DOC) for holding death-sentenced prisoners in permanent, degrading, and inhumane solitary confinement. These prisoners have suffered under the DOC’s cruel and baseless policies and practices, confined in solitary until they die by execution, die of natural causes while awaiting execution, or have their capital sentence overturned.
Court Case
Jan 2018
Immigrants' Rights
Ibrahim v. Acosta
Ibrahim v. Acosta, a class-action lawsuit, challenges the Trump administration’s efforts to deport immigrants who are at grave risk of persecution and torture if returned to Somalia. In addition to the ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ, the case is brought by the Immigration Clinic at the University of Miami School of Law, Americans for Immigrant Justice, the James H. Binger Center for New Americans at the University of Minnesota Law School, the Legal Aid Service of Broward County, and the Advocates for Human Rights.
Explore case
Court Case
Jan 2018
Immigrants' Rights
Ibrahim v. Acosta
Ibrahim v. Acosta, a class-action lawsuit, challenges the Trump administration’s efforts to deport immigrants who are at grave risk of persecution and torture if returned to Somalia. In addition to the ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ, the case is brought by the Immigration Clinic at the University of Miami School of Law, Americans for Immigrant Justice, the James H. Binger Center for New Americans at the University of Minnesota Law School, the Legal Aid Service of Broward County, and the Advocates for Human Rights.
Court Case
Jan 2018
Criminal Law Reform
Free Speech
Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Fla.
Does the existence of probable cause for an arrest automatically defeat a later First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim, even when the evidence of retaliation is overwhelming?
Explore case
Court Case
Jan 2018
Criminal Law Reform
Free Speech
Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Fla.
Does the existence of probable cause for an arrest automatically defeat a later First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim, even when the evidence of retaliation is overwhelming?
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2018
Criminal Law Reform
City of Hays, Kansas v. Vogt
Is the Fifth Amendment violated when a defendant’s compelled statements are used against him at a probable cause hearing but not at a criminal trial?
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2018
Criminal Law Reform
City of Hays, Kansas v. Vogt
Is the Fifth Amendment violated when a defendant’s compelled statements are used against him at a probable cause hearing but not at a criminal trial?
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2018
Smart Justice
Bobby Bostic v. Rhoda Pash
Does sentencing a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide to a term-of-years sentence under which he will not be eligible for parole until he is 112 years old violate the Eighth Amendment?
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2018
Smart Justice
Bobby Bostic v. Rhoda Pash
Does sentencing a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide to a term-of-years sentence under which he will not be eligible for parole until he is 112 years old violate the Eighth Amendment?