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 October 21, 2025
Ongoing
Updated October 17, 2025
Ongoing
Updated October 17, 2025
Closed
Updated September 26, 2025
Featured
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 ºìÐÓÊÓƵ 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.
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 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.
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 ºìÐÓÊÓƵ, the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ 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
1,624 Court Cases
Court Case
Jun 2025
Immigrants' Rights
Luna Gutierrez v. Noem
Explore case
Florida
May 2025
Immigrants' Rights
Peter Sean Brown v. Richard Ramsay
The ºìÐÓÊÓƵ, ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of Florida, and Americans for Immigrant Justice filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of a natural-born U.S. citizen who was unlawfully detained — and nearly deported — as a result of a Florida sheriff’s improper collaboration with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Explore case
Florida
May 2025
Immigrants' Rights
Peter Sean Brown v. Richard Ramsay
The ºìÐÓÊÓƵ, ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of Florida, and Americans for Immigrant Justice filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of a natural-born U.S. citizen who was unlawfully detained — and nearly deported — as a result of a Florida sheriff’s improper collaboration with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Florida
May 2025
Free Speech
LGBTQ Rights
HM Florida-ORL, LLC v. Griffin
On January 24, 2024, the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ and ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of Florida filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit supporting HM Florida-ORL, which operates the restaurant and bar Hamburger Mary’s in Orlando, in its lawsuit alleging that a Florida law infringes upon minors’ First Amendment rights by prohibiting them from attending drag performances.
Explore case
Florida
May 2025
Free Speech
LGBTQ Rights
HM Florida-ORL, LLC v. Griffin
On January 24, 2024, the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ and ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of Florida filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit supporting HM Florida-ORL, which operates the restaurant and bar Hamburger Mary’s in Orlando, in its lawsuit alleging that a Florida law infringes upon minors’ First Amendment rights by prohibiting them from attending drag performances.
Tennessee
May 2025
Reproductive Freedom
Catholic Medical Association v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services et al.
On behalf of Doctors for America, the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ and several partner organizations are intervening to vigorously defend pregnant patients' right to receive, and for physicians to provide, health- and life-saving abortion care under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). This federal law has required hospitals with emergency departments to provide stabilizing treatment, including abortion, to patients experiencing medical emergencies for nearly four decades.
Explore case
Tennessee
May 2025
Reproductive Freedom
Catholic Medical Association v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services et al.
On behalf of Doctors for America, the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ and several partner organizations are intervening to vigorously defend pregnant patients' right to receive, and for physicians to provide, health- and life-saving abortion care under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). This federal law has required hospitals with emergency departments to provide stabilizing treatment, including abortion, to patients experiencing medical emergencies for nearly four decades.
Tennessee
May 2025
Criminal Law Reform
Prisoners' Rights
State v. Bishop
This case presents two questions: first, whether, under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution, Union City Police Department officers possessed probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the defendant’s vehicle based exclusively on the alleged odor of cannabis, and second, whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to overturn the defendant’s conviction. The ºìÐÓÊÓƵ’s Criminal Reform Legal Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of Tennessee filed an amicus brief arguing first, that after Tennessee’s legalization of hemp in 2019, an officer’s alleged detection of the odor of cannabis is insufficient to establish probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle in Tennessee, and second, that the court of appeals improperly held that it lacked jurisdiction to overturn the defendant’s conviction.
Explore case
Tennessee
May 2025
Criminal Law Reform
Prisoners' Rights
State v. Bishop
This case presents two questions: first, whether, under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution, Union City Police Department officers possessed probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the defendant’s vehicle based exclusively on the alleged odor of cannabis, and second, whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to overturn the defendant’s conviction. The ºìÐÓÊÓƵ’s Criminal Reform Legal Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of Tennessee filed an amicus brief arguing first, that after Tennessee’s legalization of hemp in 2019, an officer’s alleged detection of the odor of cannabis is insufficient to establish probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle in Tennessee, and second, that the court of appeals improperly held that it lacked jurisdiction to overturn the defendant’s conviction.