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 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.
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
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 ºìÐÓÊÓƵ’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ 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 ºìÐÓÊÓƵ’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ 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.
Georgia
Nov 2024
Voting Rights
Ayota v. Fall
On October 31, 2024, just five days before the November 5 General Election, Cobb County announced that it had failed to send more than 3,000 absentee ballots to Cobb County voters who had timely requested them. Many of these voters are at school hundreds of miles away or have disabilities that make it all but impossible to vote in person. The ºìÐÓÊÓƵ and co-counsel sued on behalf of affected voters to ensure that they would not be disenfranchised because of the County's administrative error.
Explore case
Georgia
Nov 2024
Voting Rights
Ayota v. Fall
On October 31, 2024, just five days before the November 5 General Election, Cobb County announced that it had failed to send more than 3,000 absentee ballots to Cobb County voters who had timely requested them. Many of these voters are at school hundreds of miles away or have disabilities that make it all but impossible to vote in person. The ºìÐÓÊÓƵ and co-counsel sued on behalf of affected voters to ensure that they would not be disenfranchised because of the County's administrative error.
Maine
Oct 2024
Religious Liberty
Crosspoint v. Makin
The ºìÐÓÊÓƵ, ºìÐÓÊÓƵ 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 Maine’s school tuition program must comply with all eligibility requirements of the program, including a prohibition on discrimination against students based on their religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity.
Explore case
Maine
Oct 2024
Religious Liberty
Crosspoint v. Makin
The ºìÐÓÊÓƵ, ºìÐÓÊÓƵ 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 Maine’s school tuition program must comply with all eligibility requirements of the program, including a prohibition on discrimination against students based on their religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity.
Washington
Oct 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Religious Liberty
Aubry McMahon v. World Vision, Inc.
On October 28, 2024, the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ and ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of Washington filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit supporting affirmance of a Washington district court decision holding that a religiously affiliated nonprofit organization violated Title VII and the Washington State antidiscrimination law when it rescinded a hiring candidate’s job offer because she is a woman married to a person of the same sex. Should the Ninth Circuit accept the organization’s First Amendment defense—that religious organizations can discriminate on any basis so long as it is grounded in their religious belief—it would gut employment protections for LGBTQ individuals and pave the way for religious organizations to discriminate on the basis of not only sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity but also other protected characteristics like race, color, and national origin.
Explore case
Washington
Oct 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Religious Liberty
Aubry McMahon v. World Vision, Inc.
On October 28, 2024, the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ and ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of Washington filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit supporting affirmance of a Washington district court decision holding that a religiously affiliated nonprofit organization violated Title VII and the Washington State antidiscrimination law when it rescinded a hiring candidate’s job offer because she is a woman married to a person of the same sex. Should the Ninth Circuit accept the organization’s First Amendment defense—that religious organizations can discriminate on any basis so long as it is grounded in their religious belief—it would gut employment protections for LGBTQ individuals and pave the way for religious organizations to discriminate on the basis of not only sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity but also other protected characteristics like race, color, and national origin.
South Carolina
Oct 2024
Voting Rights
ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of South Carolina v. State Election Commission
The South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles (SCDMV) has unlawfully denied young, eligible South Carolinians the opportunity to register to vote. Under South Carolina law, individuals who are 17 years old may register to vote and vote in primary elections so long as they (1) will turn 18 on or before the next general election, and (2) otherwise meet the qualifications for voting. An administrative error in the SCDMV's processes, however has stopped the Department from transmitting the proper paperwork to complete all registration information to the South Carolina Elections Commission. As a result, thousands of young voters who did everything right and should have been registered to vote have not been added to the state's voter rolls in the runup to the 2024 general election. ºìÐÓÊÓƵ and ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of South Carolina sued, asking the court to ensure that these new voters are registered and properly notified in time for them to vote in the November 2024 election.
Explore case
South Carolina
Oct 2024
Voting Rights
ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of South Carolina v. State Election Commission
The South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles (SCDMV) has unlawfully denied young, eligible South Carolinians the opportunity to register to vote. Under South Carolina law, individuals who are 17 years old may register to vote and vote in primary elections so long as they (1) will turn 18 on or before the next general election, and (2) otherwise meet the qualifications for voting. An administrative error in the SCDMV's processes, however has stopped the Department from transmitting the proper paperwork to complete all registration information to the South Carolina Elections Commission. As a result, thousands of young voters who did everything right and should have been registered to vote have not been added to the state's voter rolls in the runup to the 2024 general election. ºìÐÓÊÓƵ and ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of South Carolina sued, asking the court to ensure that these new voters are registered and properly notified in time for them to vote in the November 2024 election.