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 5, 2025
Ongoing
Updated November 4, 2025
Ongoing
Updated October 21, 2025
Ongoing
Updated October 17, 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 Ƶ 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 Ƶ, the Ƶ 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
Louisiana
Nov 2024
Religious Liberty
Rev. Roake v. Brumley
On June 24, 2024, a multi-faith group of nine Louisiana families with children in public schools filed a federal-court lawsuit in Louisiana, challenging House Bill No. 71 (“H.B. 71”), a new state law that requires every elementary, secondary, and postsecondary public school in the state to permanently display an official version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. The families are represented by the Ƶ, the Ƶ of Louisiana, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP serving as pro bono counsel. The complaint alleges that H.B. 71 violates both the separation of church and state, as protected by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Explore case
Louisiana
Nov 2024
Religious Liberty
Rev. Roake v. Brumley
On June 24, 2024, a multi-faith group of nine Louisiana families with children in public schools filed a federal-court lawsuit in Louisiana, challenging House Bill No. 71 (“H.B. 71”), a new state law that requires every elementary, secondary, and postsecondary public school in the state to permanently display an official version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. The families are represented by the Ƶ, the Ƶ of Louisiana, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP serving as pro bono counsel. The complaint alleges that H.B. 71 violates both the separation of church and state, as protected by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Maine
Nov 2024
Religious Liberty
St. Dominic Academy v. Makin
The Ƶ, Ƶ of Maine, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit arguing that religious schools in Maine participating in the state’s school tuition program must comply with all eligibility requirements of the program – including a prohibition on discrimination on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity, among other protected characteristics.
Explore case
Maine
Nov 2024
Religious Liberty
St. Dominic Academy v. Makin
The Ƶ, Ƶ of Maine, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit arguing that religious schools in Maine participating in the state’s school tuition program must comply with all eligibility requirements of the program – including a prohibition on discrimination on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity, among other protected characteristics.
Arizona
Nov 2024
Voting Rights
Ƶ of Arizona v. Richer
We sued elections officials in Arizona to extend the mail ballot “cure” deadline after ballot processing delays threatened to disenfranchise thousands of voters without notice.
Explore case
Arizona
Nov 2024
Voting Rights
Ƶ of Arizona v. Richer
We sued elections officials in Arizona to extend the mail ballot “cure” deadline after ballot processing delays threatened to disenfranchise thousands of voters without notice.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Nov 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Shivers
This case in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court asks whether flight from the police in a high-crime area, without more, can justify an investigative stop. The Ƶ’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the Ƶ of Pennsylvania, filed an amicus brief arguing that it does not. The brief argues that the Pennsylvania Constitution supports broader protections against investigative stops than those recognized under the U.S. Constitution, and that flight in high-crime areas is not inherently more suspicious than flight elsewhere.
Explore case
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Nov 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Shivers
This case in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court asks whether flight from the police in a high-crime area, without more, can justify an investigative stop. The Ƶ’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the Ƶ of Pennsylvania, filed an amicus brief arguing that it does not. The brief argues that the Pennsylvania Constitution supports broader protections against investigative stops than those recognized under the U.S. Constitution, and that flight in high-crime areas is not inherently more suspicious than flight elsewhere.
South Carolina Supreme Court
Nov 2024
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood South Atlantic v. Wilson
This case in the South Carolina Supreme Court involves the question of whether a ban on abortion, the “2023 Fetal Heartbeat Act,” forbids abortion starting after approximately nine weeks of pregnancy or, as the state contends, earlier at six weeks of pregnancy, before many people even know they are pregnant. This case is the third state supreme court proceeding in South Carolina involving a post-Dobbs challenge to an abortion ban. The outcome will substantially affect access to reproductive care in the state.
Explore case
South Carolina Supreme Court
Nov 2024
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood South Atlantic v. Wilson
This case in the South Carolina Supreme Court involves the question of whether a ban on abortion, the “2023 Fetal Heartbeat Act,” forbids abortion starting after approximately nine weeks of pregnancy or, as the state contends, earlier at six weeks of pregnancy, before many people even know they are pregnant. This case is the third state supreme court proceeding in South Carolina involving a post-Dobbs challenge to an abortion ban. The outcome will substantially affect access to reproductive care in the state.