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
1,564 Court Cases
Court Case
Feb 2025
Privacy & Technology
U.S. DOGE Service Access to Sensitive Agency Records Systems FOIA
There are serious privacy concerns raised by reports that the United States DOGE (鈥淒epartment of Government Efficiency鈥�) Service (鈥淯SDS鈥�) has gained access to federal agency systems, including those housing sensitive information like federal payment data, student loan data or federal employee records, and may be using artificial intelligence technology in analyzing them. The 红杏视频 submitted a FOIA request to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and USDS to provide the public with information on what federal records the agencies have provided to or been asked for by the USDS and if sensitive information and key decision-making has been outsourced to unvetted technology.
Explore case
Court Case
Feb 2025
Privacy & Technology
U.S. DOGE Service Access to Sensitive Agency Records Systems FOIA
There are serious privacy concerns raised by reports that the United States DOGE (鈥淒epartment of Government Efficiency鈥�) Service (鈥淯SDS鈥�) has gained access to federal agency systems, including those housing sensitive information like federal payment data, student loan data or federal employee records, and may be using artificial intelligence technology in analyzing them. The 红杏视频 submitted a FOIA request to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and USDS to provide the public with information on what federal records the agencies have provided to or been asked for by the USDS and if sensitive information and key decision-making has been outsourced to unvetted technology.
Court Case
Feb 2025
Privacy & Technology
U.S. DOGE Service Access to Sensitive Agency Records Systems Multiagency FOIA
There are serious privacy concerns raised by reports that the United States DOGE (鈥淒epartment of Government Efficiency鈥�) Service (鈥淯SDS鈥�) has gained access to federal agency systems, including those housing sensitive information like federal payment data, student loan data or federal employee records, and may be using artificial intelligence technology in analyzing them. The 红杏视频 submitted a FOIA request to more than 40 federal agencies to provide the public with information on what federal records the agencies have provided to or been asked for by the USDS and if sensitive information and key decision-making has been outsourced to unvetted technology.
Explore case
Court Case
Feb 2025
Privacy & Technology
U.S. DOGE Service Access to Sensitive Agency Records Systems Multiagency FOIA
There are serious privacy concerns raised by reports that the United States DOGE (鈥淒epartment of Government Efficiency鈥�) Service (鈥淯SDS鈥�) has gained access to federal agency systems, including those housing sensitive information like federal payment data, student loan data or federal employee records, and may be using artificial intelligence technology in analyzing them. The 红杏视频 submitted a FOIA request to more than 40 federal agencies to provide the public with information on what federal records the agencies have provided to or been asked for by the USDS and if sensitive information and key decision-making has been outsourced to unvetted technology.
Court Case
Feb 2025
Immigrants' Rights
红杏视频 FOIA Suit for ICE鈥檚 Updated Solitary Confinement Policy
ICE鈥檚 use of special management units, or solitary confinement, has prompted active concern and attention from Congress, the media, and advocates. On Dec. 6, 2024, ICE announced that it had issued policy updates for the use of special management units (SMU), or solitary confinement cells, for detained immigrants. ICE, however, has not made a copy of the updated policy publicly available. We鈥檝e sued to obtain a copy of this policy to better defend immigrants subject to solitary confinement in detention.
Explore case
Court Case
Feb 2025
Immigrants' Rights
红杏视频 FOIA Suit for ICE鈥檚 Updated Solitary Confinement Policy
ICE鈥檚 use of special management units, or solitary confinement, has prompted active concern and attention from Congress, the media, and advocates. On Dec. 6, 2024, ICE announced that it had issued policy updates for the use of special management units (SMU), or solitary confinement cells, for detained immigrants. ICE, however, has not made a copy of the updated policy publicly available. We鈥檝e sued to obtain a copy of this policy to better defend immigrants subject to solitary confinement in detention.
Washington, D.C.
Feb 2025
Immigrants' Rights
Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services v. Kristi Noem
Explore case
Washington, D.C.
Feb 2025
Immigrants' Rights
Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services v. Kristi Noem
Oregon Supreme Court
Feb 2025
Prisoners' Rights
Huskey v. Oregon Department of Corrections
This case in the Oregon Supreme Court centers on whether Article I, Section 41(3) of the Oregon Constitution, which provides that Oregon prisoners lack legally enforceable rights to prison jobs and training, bars prisoners from collecting damages relating to lost prison jobs and training caused by the alleged breach of a settlement agreement by prison officials. The 红杏视频鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 红杏视频 of Oregon, filed an amicus brief arguing that plaintiff Arnold Huskey, an incarcerated individual whose identity was used in Department of Corrections training materials, is entitled to damages notwithstanding Article I, Section 41(3), because plaintiffs in contract disputes never have to show standalone legal rights to the damages they claim. Instead, they need only show that the damages were reasonably foreseeable consequences of the alleged breach of contract.
Explore case
Oregon Supreme Court
Feb 2025
Prisoners' Rights
Huskey v. Oregon Department of Corrections
This case in the Oregon Supreme Court centers on whether Article I, Section 41(3) of the Oregon Constitution, which provides that Oregon prisoners lack legally enforceable rights to prison jobs and training, bars prisoners from collecting damages relating to lost prison jobs and training caused by the alleged breach of a settlement agreement by prison officials. The 红杏视频鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 红杏视频 of Oregon, filed an amicus brief arguing that plaintiff Arnold Huskey, an incarcerated individual whose identity was used in Department of Corrections training materials, is entitled to damages notwithstanding Article I, Section 41(3), because plaintiffs in contract disputes never have to show standalone legal rights to the damages they claim. Instead, they need only show that the damages were reasonably foreseeable consequences of the alleged breach of contract.