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
Indiana
Oct 2025
LGBTQ Rights
K.C. v. Medical Licensing Board of Indiana
Four Hoosier families, joined by medical providers, are challenging an Indiana law passed in April 2023 barring access to gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Indiana is home to over 4,000 transgender adolescents and the health care targeted by this law is supported by the entire mainstream of the medical community.
Explore case
Indiana
Oct 2025
LGBTQ Rights
K.C. v. Medical Licensing Board of Indiana
Four Hoosier families, joined by medical providers, are challenging an Indiana law passed in April 2023 barring access to gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Indiana is home to over 4,000 transgender adolescents and the health care targeted by this law is supported by the entire mainstream of the medical community.
Court Case
Oct 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Hammons v. UMMS
Jesse Hammons was denied a commonly performed medical procedure at the University of Maryland St. Joseph Medical Center because he is transgender. The taxpayer-owned hospital claims that providing Hammons with medical care would be a violation of their religious beliefs.
Explore case
Court Case
Oct 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Hammons v. UMMS
Jesse Hammons was denied a commonly performed medical procedure at the University of Maryland St. Joseph Medical Center because he is transgender. The taxpayer-owned hospital claims that providing Hammons with medical care would be a violation of their religious beliefs.
Arkansas
Oct 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Brandt et al v. Rutledge et al
Four families of transgender youth and two doctors have challenged an Arkansas law that would prohibit healthcare professionals from providing or even referring transgender young people for medically necessary health care. The law would also bar any state funds or insurance coverage for gender-affirming health care for transgender people under 18, and it would allow private insurers to refuse to cover gender-affirming care for people of any age. The lawsuit, filed in federal court, alleges that House Bill 1570 is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Explore case
Arkansas
Oct 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Brandt et al v. Rutledge et al
Four families of transgender youth and two doctors have challenged an Arkansas law that would prohibit healthcare professionals from providing or even referring transgender young people for medically necessary health care. The law would also bar any state funds or insurance coverage for gender-affirming health care for transgender people under 18, and it would allow private insurers to refuse to cover gender-affirming care for people of any age. The lawsuit, filed in federal court, alleges that House Bill 1570 is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Pennsylvania
Oct 2025
Voting Rights
United States v. Pennsylvania
The Department of Justice (DOJ) sued the State of Pennsylvania, seeking private, confidential voter data that is protected by state privacy laws. DOJ’s efforts appear to be part of an effort to build a national voter database without congressional authorization and to improperly question the validity of state voter rolls.
Explore case
Pennsylvania
Oct 2025
Voting Rights
United States v. Pennsylvania
The Department of Justice (DOJ) sued the State of Pennsylvania, seeking private, confidential voter data that is protected by state privacy laws. DOJ’s efforts appear to be part of an effort to build a national voter database without congressional authorization and to improperly question the validity of state voter rolls.
U.S. Supreme Court
Oct 2025
LGBTQ Rights
West Virginia v. B.P.J.
Becky is a student in West Virginia who is starting high school. Three years ago, as Becky was preparing to begin middle school, West Virginia passed a law categorically banning transgender girls from participating in all school sports. Becky loves being part of a team and wanted to be able to participate in cross-country and track and field with her friends. She sued, arguing that West Virginia's law violated the Constitution and Title IX as applied to her, especially because she has received medication from the onset of puberty and has never experienced any physiological changes associated with puberty for boys. As a result of an injunction issued by the lower courts, she has been able to participate in middle school cross-country and track and field for the past three years. Becky and her mother are represented by the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ, the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of West Virginia, Lambda Legal and Cooley LLP.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Oct 2025
LGBTQ Rights
West Virginia v. B.P.J.
Becky is a student in West Virginia who is starting high school. Three years ago, as Becky was preparing to begin middle school, West Virginia passed a law categorically banning transgender girls from participating in all school sports. Becky loves being part of a team and wanted to be able to participate in cross-country and track and field with her friends. She sued, arguing that West Virginia's law violated the Constitution and Title IX as applied to her, especially because she has received medication from the onset of puberty and has never experienced any physiological changes associated with puberty for boys. As a result of an injunction issued by the lower courts, she has been able to participate in middle school cross-country and track and field for the past three years. Becky and her mother are represented by the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ, the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of West Virginia, Lambda Legal and Cooley LLP.