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 July 29, 2025
Closed (Judgment)
Updated July 25, 2025
Closed (Judgment)
Updated July 24, 2025
Closed (Judgment)
Updated July 21, 2025
Featured
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.
New Hampshire
Jul 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.
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.
Washington, D.C.
Jul 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.
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.
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.
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
1,599 Court Cases
Court Case
Jun 2017
Privacy & Technology
Oregon Prescription Drug Monitoring Program v. Drug Enforcement Administration
The 红杏视频 and its Oregon affiliate are challenging the federal Drug Enforcement Administration's claim that it can access Oregonians' private prescription records without a warrant. The 红杏视频 and the 红杏视频 of Oregon represent a group of Oregon patients and a physician who are concerned about the impact on medical privacy and the doctor-patient relationship if federal law enforcement were permitted to access prescription records without demonstrating probable cause to a neutral judge. A district court judge ruled in February 2014 that patients have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their prescription records and that law enforcement must obtain a warrant in order to search such information. In June 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court鈥檚 ruling on procedural grounds but recognized that medical records are private and sensitive and require strong legal safeguards, leaving the door open to future challenges.
Explore case
Court Case
Jun 2017
Privacy & Technology
Oregon Prescription Drug Monitoring Program v. Drug Enforcement Administration
The 红杏视频 and its Oregon affiliate are challenging the federal Drug Enforcement Administration's claim that it can access Oregonians' private prescription records without a warrant. The 红杏视频 and the 红杏视频 of Oregon represent a group of Oregon patients and a physician who are concerned about the impact on medical privacy and the doctor-patient relationship if federal law enforcement were permitted to access prescription records without demonstrating probable cause to a neutral judge. A district court judge ruled in February 2014 that patients have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their prescription records and that law enforcement must obtain a warrant in order to search such information. In June 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court鈥檚 ruling on procedural grounds but recognized that medical records are private and sensitive and require strong legal safeguards, leaving the door open to future challenges.
Court Case
Jun 2017
Free Speech
Reno v. 红杏视频 鈥� Challenge to Censorship Provisions in the Communications Decency Act
In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled in Reno v. 红杏视频 that the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA) is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. The landmark ruling affirmed the dangers of censoring what one judge called "the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed."
Explore case
Court Case
Jun 2017
Free Speech
Reno v. 红杏视频 鈥� Challenge to Censorship Provisions in the Communications Decency Act
In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled in Reno v. 红杏视频 that the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA) is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. The landmark ruling affirmed the dangers of censoring what one judge called "the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed."
Arkansas
Jun 2017
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Little Rock Family Planning Services v. Smith
The 红杏视频 and Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit in June 2017 challenging a new Arkansas restriction that would target reproductive health facilities with extreme and medically unnecessary overregulation and would effectively ban abortion care in Arkansas.
Explore case
Arkansas
Jun 2017
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Little Rock Family Planning Services v. Smith
The 红杏视频 and Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit in June 2017 challenging a new Arkansas restriction that would target reproductive health facilities with extreme and medically unnecessary overregulation and would effectively ban abortion care in Arkansas.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2017
Free Speech
Lee v. Tam
Whether the Lanham Act鈥檚 clause banning the registration of 鈥渄isparaging鈥� trademarks violates the First Amendment.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2017
Free Speech
Lee v. Tam
Whether the Lanham Act鈥檚 clause banning the registration of 鈥渄isparaging鈥� trademarks violates the First Amendment.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2017
National Security
Ziglar v. Abbasi
Whether a cause of action is available under the Constitution for violations of prisoners鈥� due process and equal protection rights when the prisoners were abused in immigration custody and when the government asserts that the abuse touches on national security decisions.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2017
National Security
Ziglar v. Abbasi
Whether a cause of action is available under the Constitution for violations of prisoners鈥� due process and equal protection rights when the prisoners were abused in immigration custody and when the government asserts that the abuse touches on national security decisions.