Supreme Court Term 2024-2025
We’re breaking down the cases we've asked the court to consider this term.
Latest Case Updates
Ongoing
Updated June 23, 2025
Ongoing
Updated June 13, 2025
Closed (Judgment)
Updated June 6, 2025
Ongoing
Updated May 8, 2025
Featured
Georgia Supreme Court
Jun 2025
Voting Rights
Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc. v. Georgia
The ºìÐÓÊÓƵ 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’s decision permanently blocking the rule requiring hand counting of ballots at polling places before tabulation — 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’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.
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—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.
Maryland
Apr 2025
Religious Liberty
LGBTQ Rights
Mahmoud v. Taylor
On April 9, 2025, the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ and ºìÐÓÊÓƵ 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’s elimination a preexisting protection for voters—namely, 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’s 2022 congressional redistricting plan, which legislators admit was drawn to entrench a 6-1 Republican majority in the state’s federal delegation. Plaintiff the League of Women Voters of South Carolina has asked the state’s 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—SB 1 for short—that 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 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.
All Cases
1,587 Court Cases
Texas
Jan 2025
Voting Rights
United Sovereign Americans, Inc. v. Nelson
The ºìÐÓÊÓƵ and partner organizations have sought to intervene to represent the rights of voters and voting-rights organizations in a case seeking to unlawfully purge the Texas voter rolls and block certification of the results of the 2024 election.
Explore case
Texas
Jan 2025
Voting Rights
United Sovereign Americans, Inc. v. Nelson
The ºìÐÓÊÓƵ and partner organizations have sought to intervene to represent the rights of voters and voting-rights organizations in a case seeking to unlawfully purge the Texas voter rolls and block certification of the results of the 2024 election.
Court Case
Jan 2025
National Security
ºìÐÓÊÓƵ v. Department of Homeland Security (CP3 FOIA)
In 2021, the Department of Homeland Security announced the establishment of the Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships, also known as CP3, and a domestic terrorism branch within the Office of Intelligence and Analysis. These initiatives are a product of DHS's new measures to address domestic violent extremism, and little is known about these programs and the effects they'll have on members of the public. DHS has a history of similar harmful programs, which have targeted communities of color, immigrants and Muslim communities. The public has a right to know about the impacts of CP3 and the I&A domestic terrorism branch on the civil rights, liberties and privacy of communities of color, immigrants and other marginalized communities. In 2022, the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ submitted a FOIA request to compel the government to release information about these initiatives. It is imperative that the public gain a greater understanding about the policies, practices, methods and goals of both CP3 and the I&A domestic terrorism branch.
Explore case
Court Case
Jan 2025
National Security
ºìÐÓÊÓƵ v. Department of Homeland Security (CP3 FOIA)
In 2021, the Department of Homeland Security announced the establishment of the Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships, also known as CP3, and a domestic terrorism branch within the Office of Intelligence and Analysis. These initiatives are a product of DHS's new measures to address domestic violent extremism, and little is known about these programs and the effects they'll have on members of the public. DHS has a history of similar harmful programs, which have targeted communities of color, immigrants and Muslim communities. The public has a right to know about the impacts of CP3 and the I&A domestic terrorism branch on the civil rights, liberties and privacy of communities of color, immigrants and other marginalized communities. In 2022, the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ submitted a FOIA request to compel the government to release information about these initiatives. It is imperative that the public gain a greater understanding about the policies, practices, methods and goals of both CP3 and the I&A domestic terrorism branch.
New York Supreme Court
Jan 2025
Free Speech
Doe v. Alwan
The ºìÐÓÊÓƵ and civil rights firm Wang Hecker LLP are representing a Columbia University faculty organization against claims that their speech in defense of students’ rights to free speech and protest injured several students.
Explore case
New York Supreme Court
Jan 2025
Free Speech
Doe v. Alwan
The ºìÐÓÊÓƵ and civil rights firm Wang Hecker LLP are representing a Columbia University faculty organization against claims that their speech in defense of students’ rights to free speech and protest injured several students.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2025
National Security
+2 Issues
TikTok Inc., et al. v. Garland (Amicus)
The Supreme Court will decide whether a law that effectively bans TikTok in the United States violates the First Amendment rights of more than 170 million Americans who use the social media platform. The law also allows the President to ban other foreign-owned apps deemed a national security threat, opening the door to future abuse and censorship. The ban on TikTok is set to go into effect on January 19, 2025.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2025
National Security
+2 Issues
TikTok Inc., et al. v. Garland (Amicus)
The Supreme Court will decide whether a law that effectively bans TikTok in the United States violates the First Amendment rights of more than 170 million Americans who use the social media platform. The law also allows the President to ban other foreign-owned apps deemed a national security threat, opening the door to future abuse and censorship. The ban on TikTok is set to go into effect on January 19, 2025.
Court Case
Jan 2025
Immigrants' Rights
National Security
Samma v. U.S. Department of Defense—Lawsuit Challenging Policy Denying U.S. Military Service Members Expedited Path to Citizenship
In April 2020, the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ, ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of Southern California, and ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of District of Columbia filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of military service members challenging a 2017 Trump administration policy blocking their expedited path to citizenship. In August 2020, a federal district court certified the class and ruled that the policy’s requirement that non-citizens serve a minimum period of time before they can apply for citizenship is unlawful.
Explore case
Court Case
Jan 2025
Immigrants' Rights
National Security
Samma v. U.S. Department of Defense—Lawsuit Challenging Policy Denying U.S. Military Service Members Expedited Path to Citizenship
In April 2020, the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ, ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of Southern California, and ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of District of Columbia filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of military service members challenging a 2017 Trump administration policy blocking their expedited path to citizenship. In August 2020, a federal district court certified the class and ruled that the policy’s requirement that non-citizens serve a minimum period of time before they can apply for citizenship is unlawful.