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 ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ 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 ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ, the ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ 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
Washington, D.C.
May 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Disability Rights
Mathis v. United States Parole Commission
This federal class-action lawsuit alleges that the federal government’s post-conviction supervision system in Washington, D.C., violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by systematically failing to accommodate the needs of people with disabilities on supervision.
Explore case
Washington, D.C.
May 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Disability Rights
Mathis v. United States Parole Commission
This federal class-action lawsuit alleges that the federal government’s post-conviction supervision system in Washington, D.C., violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by systematically failing to accommodate the needs of people with disabilities on supervision.
Texas
Apr 2024
Voting Rights
Crystal Mason v. State of Texas
Crystal Mason thought she was performing her civic duty by filling out a provisional ballot in the 2016 election. She didn't know it would land her a five-year prison sentence, upending her family and the life she had built. At the time, Ms. Mason was on federal supervised release, a preliminary period of freedom for individuals who have served their full time of incarceration in federal prison. Ms. Mason didn’t know, and nobody told her, that the state considered her ineligible to vote while on supervised release. Because her name didn’t appear on voter rolls, she filed a provisional ballot, consistent with federal law. The state never counted her ballot but has still sought to send her to prison for an innocent mistake.
Explore case
Texas
Apr 2024
Voting Rights
Crystal Mason v. State of Texas
Crystal Mason thought she was performing her civic duty by filling out a provisional ballot in the 2016 election. She didn't know it would land her a five-year prison sentence, upending her family and the life she had built. At the time, Ms. Mason was on federal supervised release, a preliminary period of freedom for individuals who have served their full time of incarceration in federal prison. Ms. Mason didn’t know, and nobody told her, that the state considered her ineligible to vote while on supervised release. Because her name didn’t appear on voter rolls, she filed a provisional ballot, consistent with federal law. The state never counted her ballot but has still sought to send her to prison for an innocent mistake.
California
Apr 2024
Religious Liberty
LGBTQ Rights
California Civil Rights Department v. Cathy's Creations d/b/a Tastries
On April 11, 2024, the ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ, ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ of Southern California, ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ of Northern California, and ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ of San Diego & Imperial Counties filed an amicus brief with the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District supporting the California Civil Rights Department’s appeal of a lower court judgment finding that a bakery owner did not violate the California public accommodations law when she refused to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple.
Explore case
California
Apr 2024
Religious Liberty
LGBTQ Rights
California Civil Rights Department v. Cathy's Creations d/b/a Tastries
On April 11, 2024, the ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ, ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ of Southern California, ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ of Northern California, and ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ of San Diego & Imperial Counties filed an amicus brief with the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District supporting the California Civil Rights Department’s appeal of a lower court judgment finding that a bakery owner did not violate the California public accommodations law when she refused to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple.
New York
Apr 2024
National Security
ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ v. NSA — FOIA Lawsuit Seeking Court Opinions Addressing Section 702 Surveillance
ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ v. NSA seeks to compel the government to disclose recent court opinions concerning spying conducted under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — one of the most sweeping surveillance authorities ever enacted by Congress. Public access to these records is essential for an informed debate as Congress considers whether to reform or reauthorize this surveillance law ahead of its sunset in December 2023.
Explore case
New York
Apr 2024
National Security
ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ v. NSA — FOIA Lawsuit Seeking Court Opinions Addressing Section 702 Surveillance
ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ v. NSA seeks to compel the government to disclose recent court opinions concerning spying conducted under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — one of the most sweeping surveillance authorities ever enacted by Congress. Public access to these records is essential for an informed debate as Congress considers whether to reform or reauthorize this surveillance law ahead of its sunset in December 2023.
Texas
Apr 2024
Privacy & Technology
Wells v. State of Texas
Explore case