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 23, 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
South Dakota
Feb 2019
![Bruce v. South Dakota](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Bruce v. South Dakota
The ACLU and the ACLU of South Dakota filed a federal suit on behalf of Terri Bruce against the state of South Dakota because it denies transgender employees health insurance coverage for medically necessary transition-related health care.
Status: Closed
View case
![Bruce v. South Dakota](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
South Dakota
LGBTQ Rights
Bruce v. South Dakota
The ACLU and the ACLU of South Dakota filed a federal suit on behalf of Terri Bruce against the state of South Dakota because it denies transgender employees health insurance coverage for medically necessary transition-related health care.
Feb 2019
Status: Closed
View case
Colorado
Feb 2019
![Dashir Moore](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2019/09/web19-dashir-moore-with-dirty-the-dog-02-1160x768-600x397.jpg)
Moore v. InnoSource Inc.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado filed a discrimination charge against InnoSource Inc. on behalf of Dashir Moore, a 32-year-old transgender man who was denied health care coverage for treatment of gender dysphoria and subsequent transition-related care. Insurance carve-outs for transition-related care are illegal, yet two days after his surgery Mr. Moore was informed that his insurance company had denied the claim and he began receiving bills from the hospital, which eventually totaled nearly $30,000.
View case
![Dashir Moore](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2019/09/web19-dashir-moore-with-dirty-the-dog-02-1160x768-600x397.jpg)
Colorado
LGBTQ Rights
Moore v. InnoSource Inc.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado filed a discrimination charge against InnoSource Inc. on behalf of Dashir Moore, a 32-year-old transgender man who was denied health care coverage for treatment of gender dysphoria and subsequent transition-related care. Insurance carve-outs for transition-related care are illegal, yet two days after his surgery Mr. Moore was informed that his insurance company had denied the claim and he began receiving bills from the hospital, which eventually totaled nearly $30,000.
Feb 2019
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Feb 2019
![Bucklew v. Precythe, 17-8151](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Bucklew v. Precythe, 17-8151
Whether the execution of Russell Bucklew by lethal injection would violate the Eighth Amendment as cruel and unusual punishment because he suffers from a rare medical condition that would cause him to choke on his own blood and suffocate for four minutes before dying.
View case
![Bucklew v. Precythe, 17-8151](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
U.S. Supreme Court
Capital Punishment
Bucklew v. Precythe, 17-8151
Whether the execution of Russell Bucklew by lethal injection would violate the Eighth Amendment as cruel and unusual punishment because he suffers from a rare medical condition that would cause him to choke on his own blood and suffocate for four minutes before dying.
Feb 2019
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Feb 2019
![Nieves v. Bartlett, 17-1174](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Nieves v. Bartlett, 17-1174
Whether a plaintiff who claims that a police officer retaliated against his First Amendment-protected expression by arresting him for a misdemeanor is barred from suing if the police had probable cause for his arrest.
View case
![Nieves v. Bartlett, 17-1174](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
U.S. Supreme Court
Free Speech
Criminal Law Reform
Nieves v. Bartlett, 17-1174
Whether a plaintiff who claims that a police officer retaliated against his First Amendment-protected expression by arresting him for a misdemeanor is barred from suing if the police had probable cause for his arrest.
Feb 2019
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Feb 2019
![Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, 17‐1702](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, 17‐1702
Whether the private operator of a public access channel in New York City is a state actor, and therefore bound by the First Amendment, for the purpose of selecting and scheduling its broadcasts, where federal, state, and city laws and policies so strictly circumscribe its content decisions that all independent editorial judgment is displaced.
View case
![Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, 17‐1702](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
U.S. Supreme Court
Free Speech
Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, 17‐1702
Whether the private operator of a public access channel in New York City is a state actor, and therefore bound by the First Amendment, for the purpose of selecting and scheduling its broadcasts, where federal, state, and city laws and policies so strictly circumscribe its content decisions that all independent editorial judgment is displaced.
Feb 2019
View case