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
Louisiana
Aug 2017
![Past Due Bill](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/WEB18-PastDueBill-1160x864-600x447.jpg)
Ayo v. Dunn et al
For years, people arrested in East Baton Rouge Parish who appeared before Judge Trudy White have been jailed unless they pay a $525 fee to a private corporation called Rehabilitation Home Incarceration (“RHI”). This fee is paid by each person for their own pre-trial release. This fee is paid in addition to any bail amount required by the judge as a condition for that person’s release. This has been going on for at least three years in the parish.
View case
![Past Due Bill](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/WEB18-PastDueBill-1160x864-600x447.jpg)
Louisiana
Smart Justice
Ayo v. Dunn et al
For years, people arrested in East Baton Rouge Parish who appeared before Judge Trudy White have been jailed unless they pay a $525 fee to a private corporation called Rehabilitation Home Incarceration (“RHI”). This fee is paid by each person for their own pre-trial release. This fee is paid in addition to any bail amount required by the judge as a condition for that person’s release. This has been going on for at least three years in the parish.
Aug 2017
View case
Aug 2017
![NYPD car](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/WEB16-nypd-1160x864-600x447.jpg)
Raza v. City of New York - Legal Challenge to NYPD Muslim Surveillance Program
The ACLU, the NYCLU, and the CLEAR project at CUNY Law School filed a lawsuit in June 2013 challenging the New York City Police Department's discriminatory and unjustified surveillance of New York Muslims. We were later joined by the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP. The plaintiffs include three religious and community leaders, two mosques, and one charitable organization, all of whom were subject to the NYPD's unconstitutional religious profiling program. In January 2016, we announced a proposed settlement in the case with important reforms that include a bar against NYPD investigations on the basis of race, religion, or ethnicity, and the creation of a civilian representative position to oversee rules that safeguard against discriminatory and unjustified NYPD surveillance. That settlement was a joint one, with both the NYPD and the lawyers in Handschu v. Special Services Division, a long-standing class action that challenged the NYPD’s unlawful surveillance of political groups and activists. In October 2016, the federal district court judge presiding over the Handschu case held that he would approve the settlement if the parties agreed to three alterations, which would further strengthen protections. In March 2017, the courts in both Handschu and Raza approved the revised settlement.
Status: Closed (Settled)
View case
![NYPD car](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/WEB16-nypd-1160x864-600x447.jpg)
National Security
Raza v. City of New York - Legal Challenge to NYPD Muslim Surveillance Program
The ACLU, the NYCLU, and the CLEAR project at CUNY Law School filed a lawsuit in June 2013 challenging the New York City Police Department's discriminatory and unjustified surveillance of New York Muslims. We were later joined by the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP. The plaintiffs include three religious and community leaders, two mosques, and one charitable organization, all of whom were subject to the NYPD's unconstitutional religious profiling program. In January 2016, we announced a proposed settlement in the case with important reforms that include a bar against NYPD investigations on the basis of race, religion, or ethnicity, and the creation of a civilian representative position to oversee rules that safeguard against discriminatory and unjustified NYPD surveillance. That settlement was a joint one, with both the NYPD and the lawyers in Handschu v. Special Services Division, a long-standing class action that challenged the NYPD’s unlawful surveillance of political groups and activists. In October 2016, the federal district court judge presiding over the Handschu case held that he would approve the settlement if the parties agreed to three alterations, which would further strengthen protections. In March 2017, the courts in both Handschu and Raza approved the revised settlement.
Aug 2017
Status: Closed (Settled)
View case
Aug 2017
![Housing Nuisance Ordinances](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2019/09/web15-blog-nuisanceord-1160x768-600x397.jpg)
Board of Trustees of the Village of Groton v. Pirro
The case involves Groton’s enforcement of its nuisance ordinance against a landlord based on calls for police service, circumstances that did not constitute criminal activity, and other unjustified grounds. The ACLU filed an amicus brief that highlighted the serious due process and First Amendment issues with the ordinance, as well as the impact of these ordinances on domestic violence survivors and people with disabilities.
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
![Housing Nuisance Ordinances](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2019/09/web15-blog-nuisanceord-1160x768-600x397.jpg)
Women's Rights
Board of Trustees of the Village of Groton v. Pirro
The case involves Groton’s enforcement of its nuisance ordinance against a landlord based on calls for police service, circumstances that did not constitute criminal activity, and other unjustified grounds. The ACLU filed an amicus brief that highlighted the serious due process and First Amendment issues with the ordinance, as well as the impact of these ordinances on domestic violence survivors and people with disabilities.
Aug 2017
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
Alabama
Jul 2017
![Reproductive Health Services v. Marshall](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Reproductive Health Services v. Marshall
On July 28, 2017, the U.S. District Court blocked an Alabama law that imposed severe barriers on a minor’s ability to get abortion care in the state. The law, which was passed in 2014, applied to minors who sought a judicial bypass of the state’s parental consent requirement for abortion. It went beyond any other parental consent law in the country and forced minors seeking abortion care to stand trial if they were unable to obtain a parent’s consent for the procedure.
View case
![Reproductive Health Services v. Marshall](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Alabama
Reproductive Freedom
Reproductive Health Services v. Marshall
On July 28, 2017, the U.S. District Court blocked an Alabama law that imposed severe barriers on a minor’s ability to get abortion care in the state. The law, which was passed in 2014, applied to minors who sought a judicial bypass of the state’s parental consent requirement for abortion. It went beyond any other parental consent law in the country and forced minors seeking abortion care to stand trial if they were unable to obtain a parent’s consent for the procedure.
Jul 2017
View case
Rhode Island
Jul 2017
![Young prisoner in juvenile solitary with head between hands](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/WEB17--juvenilesolitary-1160x768-600x397.jpg)
Inmates of the Rhode Island Training School for Youth v. Piccola
On July 24, U.S. District Court Chief Judge William Smith dismissed the ACLU’s lawsuit against the Rhode Island Training School for Youth, which challenged the deplorable conditions at the institution as violations of the Eighth Amendment. This landmark case is now closed at the behest of the ACLU and the state of Rhode Island because the institution has made the improvements in education, medical care, vocational training, the physical plant, meals, and other conditions required by the consent decree between the state and the plaintiffs.
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
![Young prisoner in juvenile solitary with head between hands](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/WEB17--juvenilesolitary-1160x768-600x397.jpg)
Rhode Island
Juvenile Justice
Prisoners' Rights
Inmates of the Rhode Island Training School for Youth v. Piccola
On July 24, U.S. District Court Chief Judge William Smith dismissed the ACLU’s lawsuit against the Rhode Island Training School for Youth, which challenged the deplorable conditions at the institution as violations of the Eighth Amendment. This landmark case is now closed at the behest of the ACLU and the state of Rhode Island because the institution has made the improvements in education, medical care, vocational training, the physical plant, meals, and other conditions required by the consent decree between the state and the plaintiffs.
Jul 2017
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case