Supreme Court Term 2023-2024
We’re breaking down the cases we've asked the court to consider this term.
Latest Case Updates
Ongoing
Updated July 16, 2024
Updated July 3, 2024
Ongoing
Updated June 26, 2024
Ongoing
Updated June 14, 2024
Featured
Ohio
Jul 2024
![dis](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/03/disability-600x400.jpg)
League of Women Voters of Ohio v. LaRose
In Ohio, HB 458 makes it a felony for any person who is not an election official or mail carrier to return an absentee voter's ballot—including voters with disabilities—unless the person assisting falls within an unduly narrow list of relatives. We are challenging the law because it violates Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) by making it exceedingly difficult for voters with disabilities to cast their ballots.
Status: Ongoing
View case
Mississippi
Jul 2024
![Mississippi](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/02/MS-Redistricting-Maps-Header-600x400.jpg)
Mississippi State Conference of the NAACP v. State Board of Election Commissioners
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.
Status: Ongoing
View case
Ohio
May 2024
![Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region et al., v. Ohio Department of Health, et al.](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region et al., v. Ohio Department of Health, et al.
The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU 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.
Status: Ongoing
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
May 2024
![South Carolina](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/05/SC-2-600x400.jpg)
Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (Congressional Map Challenge)
South Carolina unlawfully assigned voters to congressional districts based on their race and intentionally discriminated against Black voters in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
Status: Ongoing
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
May 2024
![Louisiana](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/03/Depositphotos_466919260_S-600x400.jpg)
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.
Status: Ongoing
View case
Texas
Apr 2024
![Crystal Mason](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/03/Crystal_Mason_1160x650-600x336.png)
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.
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 2024
![Idaho and Moyle, et al. v. United States](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
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.
Status: Ongoing
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 2024
![City of Grants Pass v. Johnson](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
City of Grants Pass v. Johnson
Status: Ongoing
View case
Montana Supreme Court
Mar 2024
![MT](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2021/05/MT.jpg)
Western Native Voice v. Jacobsen
The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Montana, Native American Rights Fund (NARF), and the Harvard Election Law Clinic challenged two Montana laws that hinder Native American participation in the state’s electoral process — HB 530, which prohibited paid third-party ballot collection; and HB 176, which repealed Election Day voter registration (EDR) in Montana. Together, these laws violate a number of provisions in the Montana Constitution: the right to vote, equal protection, free speech, and due process.
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
Stay informed about our latest work in the courts.
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU's privacy statement.
All Cases
1,444 Court Cases
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2019
![A demonstrator at the March On for Voting Rights in Washington D.C. holds up a sign reading "Suppression and Gerrymandering are Not Democracy".](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/11/suppression-and-gerrymandering-are-not-democracy-sign-f-600x300.jpg)
Rucho v. Common Cause/Benisek v. Lamone (Amicus)
Whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable and whether the plaintiffs in North Carolina and Maryland established that the legislatures had impermissibly sought to benefit one party over the other, regardless of how voters voted.
Status: Ongoing
View case
![A demonstrator at the March On for Voting Rights in Washington D.C. holds up a sign reading "Suppression and Gerrymandering are Not Democracy".](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/11/suppression-and-gerrymandering-are-not-democracy-sign-f-600x300.jpg)
U.S. Supreme Court
Voting Rights
Rucho v. Common Cause/Benisek v. Lamone (Amicus)
Whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable and whether the plaintiffs in North Carolina and Maryland established that the legislatures had impermissibly sought to benefit one party over the other, regardless of how voters voted.
Jun 2019
Status: Ongoing
View case
Virginia
Jun 2019
![Apartment building exterior](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2019/09/web18-apartment-complex-1160x768-600x397.jpg)
Home of Virginia, Inc. V. Wisely Properties,Llc and Multifamily Management Services, Inc.
The ACLU and the ACLU of Virginia, along with Relman, Dane & Colfax, PLLC, a Washington, D.C.-based civil rights law firm, filed a federal lawsuit against the owner of a Chesterfield County apartment complex for application policies that discriminate against black people. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of Housing Opportunities Made Equal of Virginia, Inc. (HOME), explains how the blanket criminal record screening policy used at Sterling Glen Apartments is intended to keep African Americans from living there and disproportionately harms people of color.
View case
![Apartment building exterior](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2019/09/web18-apartment-complex-1160x768-600x397.jpg)
Virginia
Racial Justice
Home of Virginia, Inc. V. Wisely Properties,Llc and Multifamily Management Services, Inc.
The ACLU and the ACLU of Virginia, along with Relman, Dane & Colfax, PLLC, a Washington, D.C.-based civil rights law firm, filed a federal lawsuit against the owner of a Chesterfield County apartment complex for application policies that discriminate against black people. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of Housing Opportunities Made Equal of Virginia, Inc. (HOME), explains how the blanket criminal record screening policy used at Sterling Glen Apartments is intended to keep African Americans from living there and disproportionately harms people of color.
Jun 2019
View case
May 2019
![eviction](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2019/09/web17-evictionnoticewhitedoor-1160x768-600x397.jpg)
Boston Housing Authority v. Y.A.
In December of 2018, ACLU Women’s Rights Project and the ACLU of Massachusetts filed an amicus brief at the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court supporting a domestic violence survivor who asserted the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) as a defense to her eviction for nonpayment of rent that directly resulted from physical, emotional, and economic abuse. VAWA prohibits covered housing providers, like Boston Housing Authority, from evicting or otherwise discriminating against survivors of domestic violence for reasons caused by their abuse.
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
![eviction](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2019/09/web17-evictionnoticewhitedoor-1160x768-600x397.jpg)
Women's Rights
Boston Housing Authority v. Y.A.
In December of 2018, ACLU Women’s Rights Project and the ACLU of Massachusetts filed an amicus brief at the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court supporting a domestic violence survivor who asserted the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) as a defense to her eviction for nonpayment of rent that directly resulted from physical, emotional, and economic abuse. VAWA prohibits covered housing providers, like Boston Housing Authority, from evicting or otherwise discriminating against survivors of domestic violence for reasons caused by their abuse.
May 2019
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
May 2019
![A white hand on a computer mouse side by side with a black hand on a computer mouse](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/Mouse_V04_1160x864 -600x447.jpg)
Sandvig v. Barr — Challenge to CFAA Prohibition on Uncovering Racial Discrimination Online
The ACLU has filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which makes it a federal crime to access a computer in a manner that “exceeds authorized access.” This provision of the law often prohibits and chills academics, researchers, and journalists from testing for discrimination on the internet. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in June 2016. The plaintiffs are academic researchers, computer scientists, and journalists who wish to investigate companies’ online practices through standard academic and journalistic techniques, but are limited by the terms of service of target websites.
Status: Ongoing
View case
![A white hand on a computer mouse side by side with a black hand on a computer mouse](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/Mouse_V04_1160x864 -600x447.jpg)
Free Speech
+2 Issues
Sandvig v. Barr — Challenge to CFAA Prohibition on Uncovering Racial Discrimination Online
The ACLU has filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which makes it a federal crime to access a computer in a manner that “exceeds authorized access.” This provision of the law often prohibits and chills academics, researchers, and journalists from testing for discrimination on the internet. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in June 2016. The plaintiffs are academic researchers, computer scientists, and journalists who wish to investigate companies’ online practices through standard academic and journalistic techniques, but are limited by the terms of service of target websites.
May 2019
Status: Ongoing
View case
![File boxes on shelves](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/WEB19-File-Boxes-Archive-1160x768-600x397.jpg)
Arizona
Smart Justice
ACLU of Arizona v. Montgomery
May 2019
View case