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 7, 2025
Ongoing
Updated November 5, 2025
Ongoing
Updated November 4, 2025
Ongoing
Updated October 21, 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
Florida
Mar 2022
Reproductive Freedom
Gainesville Woman Care, LLC v. State of Florida
On June 11, 2015, Florida abortion providers filed suit in state court to challenge a medically unnecessary law that would force virtually all people seeking abortions, unlike any other patients in Florida, to delay the care they need against their will and regardless of their personal circumstances. Since its enactment in 2015, the restriction has largely been blocked, but on March 23, 2022, a Florida state trial court indicated that it intended to rule for the State and dismiss the challenge, and, on April 8, 2022, the court issued an order upholding the law. The medically unnecessary and harmful law took effect upon entry of final judgment on April 25, 2022.
Explore case
Florida
Mar 2022
Reproductive Freedom
Gainesville Woman Care, LLC v. State of Florida
On June 11, 2015, Florida abortion providers filed suit in state court to challenge a medically unnecessary law that would force virtually all people seeking abortions, unlike any other patients in Florida, to delay the care they need against their will and regardless of their personal circumstances. Since its enactment in 2015, the restriction has largely been blocked, but on March 23, 2022, a Florida state trial court indicated that it intended to rule for the State and dismiss the challenge, and, on April 8, 2022, the court issued an order upholding the law. The medically unnecessary and harmful law took effect upon entry of final judgment on April 25, 2022.
U.S. Supreme Court
Mar 2022
Human Rights
Egbert v. Boule
Whether a damages remedy should be available when a federal agent violated the plaintiff’s First and Fourth Amendment rights by entering private property without a warrant, throwing the plaintiff to the ground without justification, and then retaliated against him for exercising his right to seek redress from the government.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Mar 2022
Human Rights
Egbert v. Boule
Whether a damages remedy should be available when a federal agent violated the plaintiff’s First and Fourth Amendment rights by entering private property without a warrant, throwing the plaintiff to the ground without justification, and then retaliated against him for exercising his right to seek redress from the government.
Court Case
Mar 2022
LGBTQ Rights
Catholic Charities West Michigan v. Michigan Department of Health and Human Services
A second state-contracted, taxpayer-funded child placing agency sued the State of Michigan claiming a constitutional right to discriminate against prospective foster and adoptive families headed by same-sex couples in violation of State contracts. The ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ, representing prospective adoptive parents Kristy and Dana Dumont, is seeking to intervene in this lawsuit in support of the State.
Explore case
Court Case
Mar 2022
LGBTQ Rights
Catholic Charities West Michigan v. Michigan Department of Health and Human Services
A second state-contracted, taxpayer-funded child placing agency sued the State of Michigan claiming a constitutional right to discriminate against prospective foster and adoptive families headed by same-sex couples in violation of State contracts. The ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ, representing prospective adoptive parents Kristy and Dana Dumont, is seeking to intervene in this lawsuit in support of the State.
U.S. Supreme Court
Mar 2022
Capital Punishment
United States v. Tsarnaev
Whether the district court committed reversible error in excluding mitigating evidence that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s older brother had previously committed three brutal murders in the name of jihad, where the defense’s central mitigation theory was that he had acted under his brother’s influence and had a lesser role in the offense.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Mar 2022
Capital Punishment
United States v. Tsarnaev
Whether the district court committed reversible error in excluding mitigating evidence that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s older brother had previously committed three brutal murders in the name of jihad, where the defense’s central mitigation theory was that he had acted under his brother’s influence and had a lesser role in the offense.
North Carolina
Mar 2022
Criminal Law Reform
Racial Justice
Johnson v. Jessup
The ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ (ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ), ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ of North Carolina, Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), and Southern Coalition for Social Justice are suing the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) for indefinitely revoking driver’s licenses of people who cannot afford to pay traffic tickets. North Carolina’s wealth-based license revocation system impacts hundreds of thousands of people each year, preventing them from driving legally to support themselves and their families. This system funnels people unable to pay traffic tickets, particularly people of color, into cycles of debt, traffic violations, and poverty in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s promises of due process and equal protection under the law.
Explore case
North Carolina
Mar 2022
Criminal Law Reform
Racial Justice
Johnson v. Jessup
The ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ (ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ), ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ of North Carolina, Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), and Southern Coalition for Social Justice are suing the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) for indefinitely revoking driver’s licenses of people who cannot afford to pay traffic tickets. North Carolina’s wealth-based license revocation system impacts hundreds of thousands of people each year, preventing them from driving legally to support themselves and their families. This system funnels people unable to pay traffic tickets, particularly people of color, into cycles of debt, traffic violations, and poverty in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s promises of due process and equal protection under the law.