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
Alabama
Sep 2017
Women's Rights
Hicks v Tuscaloosa
Stephanie Hicks was a police officer working for the West Alabama Narcotics Task Force. Just eight days after Agent Hicks returned to work after her maternity leave, she was demoted to a position as a patrol officer.
Explore case
Alabama
Sep 2017
Women's Rights
Hicks v Tuscaloosa
Stephanie Hicks was a police officer working for the West Alabama Narcotics Task Force. Just eight days after Agent Hicks returned to work after her maternity leave, she was demoted to a position as a patrol officer.
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2017
Voting Rights
Gill v. Whitford
Whether partisan gerrymandering that entrenches a legislative majority violates the First Amendment.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2017
Voting Rights
Gill v. Whitford
Whether partisan gerrymandering that entrenches a legislative majority violates the First Amendment.
Court Case
Aug 2017
National Security
Darweesh v. Trump
This case challenges President Trump’s Muslim ban. The lead plaintiffs have been detained by the U.S. government and threatened with deportation even though they have valid visas to enter the United States. One plaintiff, Hameed Darweesh, an Iraqi husband and father of three, worked for the U.S. military and his life was in danger in Iraq due to that relationship. The other plaintiff’s wife and son were threatened because of their perceived ties to the United States. U.S. Customs and Border Protection detained both men in JFK Airport in New York as they entered the country.
Explore case
Court Case
Aug 2017
National Security
Darweesh v. Trump
This case challenges President Trump’s Muslim ban. The lead plaintiffs have been detained by the U.S. government and threatened with deportation even though they have valid visas to enter the United States. One plaintiff, Hameed Darweesh, an Iraqi husband and father of three, worked for the U.S. military and his life was in danger in Iraq due to that relationship. The other plaintiff’s wife and son were threatened because of their perceived ties to the United States. U.S. Customs and Border Protection detained both men in JFK Airport in New York as they entered the country.
Texas
Aug 2017
Immigrants' Rights
City of El Cenizo et al v. State of Texas et al
The ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ and the ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ of Texas filed the first motion to block the anti-immigrant and anti-law enforcement Texas Senate Bill (SB4) before it takes effect.
Explore case
Texas
Aug 2017
Immigrants' Rights
City of El Cenizo et al v. State of Texas et al
The ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ and the ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ of Texas filed the first motion to block the anti-immigrant and anti-law enforcement Texas Senate Bill (SB4) before it takes effect.
California
Aug 2017
Voting Rights
La Follette v. Padilla
The ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ is suing California for invalidating the vote-by-mail ballots of tens of thousands of voters without warning. At issue is a state law that allows election officials — who have no handwriting-analysis expertise — to reject a vote-by-mail ballot without giving notice to the voter, if they think the signature on the ballot envelope does not match the one they have in the voter’s registration file. Nothing in the law tells voters they have to sign their ballot envelopes in any particular way; and voters are not informed that their ballots have been thrown out.
Explore case
California
Aug 2017
Voting Rights
La Follette v. Padilla
The ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ is suing California for invalidating the vote-by-mail ballots of tens of thousands of voters without warning. At issue is a state law that allows election officials — who have no handwriting-analysis expertise — to reject a vote-by-mail ballot without giving notice to the voter, if they think the signature on the ballot envelope does not match the one they have in the voter’s registration file. Nothing in the law tells voters they have to sign their ballot envelopes in any particular way; and voters are not informed that their ballots have been thrown out.