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 August 19, 2024
Ongoing
Updated August 12, 2024
Closed (Judgment)
Updated August 9, 2024
Ongoing
Updated July 30, 2024
Featured
Minnesota Supreme Court
Aug 2024
![Minnesota](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/04/Minnesota.jpg)
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Hunt
The ACLU and ACLU of Minnesota intervened as defendants to block an attempt by Minnesota Voters Alliance -- a private plaintiff group -- to challenge a law that restored voting rights to individuals convicted of a felony while they are "not incarcerated for the offense" and "including any period when they are on work release."
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jul 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
Nebraska Supreme Court
Jul 2024
![Nebraska vote](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/07/Vote-Nebraska-600x400.jpg)
King v. Evnen
Less than four months before the November 2024 presidential election, the Nebraska Secretary of State issued a directive embracing a non-binding opinion issued by the state Attorney General that would essentially reinstate permanent felony disenfranchisement and re-disenfranchise tens of thousands of Nebraska citizens. This directive is violative of both the Nebraska Constitution and several state statutes, and urgent relief is needed to avoid mass disenfranchisement of an entire class of Nebraska citizens.
Status: Ongoing
View case
South Carolina Supreme Court
Jul 2024
![South CArolina Supreme](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/07/GQStblrWIAAVtQW-600x315.jpg)
League of Women Voters of South Carolina v. Alexander
This case involves a state constitutional challenge to South Carolina’s 2022 congressional redistricting plan, which legislators admit was drawn to entrench a 6-1 Republican majority in the state’s federal delegation. Plaintiff the League of Women Voters of South Carolina has asked the state’s Supreme Court to conclude that the congressional map is an unlawful partisan gerrymander that violates the state constitution.
Status: Ongoing
View case
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
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
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
1,449 Court Cases
Ohio
Jan 2024
![Mann v. Ohio Dep't of Rehabilitation and Correction](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Mann v. Ohio Dep't of Rehabilitation and Correction
The CDC estimates that 1 in 3 people in U.S. jails and prisons have Hepatitis C virus (“HCV”), a rate exponentially higher than the general population. Recent medical advances have made HCV a curable condition, and treatment can be completed in a matter of weeks. But jails and prisons have been far too slow to adopt the new community standard of care. The ACLU is working to ensure that all incarcerated patients with HCV have access to life-saving treatment.
Status: Closed
View case
![Mann v. Ohio Dep't of Rehabilitation and Correction](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Ohio
Prisoners' Rights
Mann v. Ohio Dep't of Rehabilitation and Correction
The CDC estimates that 1 in 3 people in U.S. jails and prisons have Hepatitis C virus (“HCV”), a rate exponentially higher than the general population. Recent medical advances have made HCV a curable condition, and treatment can be completed in a matter of weeks. But jails and prisons have been far too slow to adopt the new community standard of care. The ACLU is working to ensure that all incarcerated patients with HCV have access to life-saving treatment.
Jan 2024
Status: Closed
View case
North Carolina
Jan 2024
![Short v. Hartman](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Short v. Hartman
Pretrial detainees cannot be punished because they have not been convicted of any crime. Yet until recently, courts have applied the Eighth Amendment’s heightened, subjective legal standard applicable to convicted prisoners to claims brought by pretrial detainees. The ACLU is working to ensure that courts apply a lower, objective standard to Fourteenth Amendment claims brought by pretrial detainees.
Status: Ongoing
View case
![Short v. Hartman](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
North Carolina
Prisoners' Rights
Short v. Hartman
Pretrial detainees cannot be punished because they have not been convicted of any crime. Yet until recently, courts have applied the Eighth Amendment’s heightened, subjective legal standard applicable to convicted prisoners to claims brought by pretrial detainees. The ACLU is working to ensure that courts apply a lower, objective standard to Fourteenth Amendment claims brought by pretrial detainees.
Jan 2024
Status: Ongoing
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Dec 2023
![Outside Federal Bureau of Investigation Headquarters](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2019/10/web19-fbi-building-kristi-blokhin-shutterstock.com-blogimage-1160x768-600x397.jpg)
FBI v. Fikre
Whether the government can overcome the voluntary cessation exception to mootness by removing an individual from the No Fly List when the government has not repudiated its decision to place him on the List and remains free to return him to the List for the same reasons and using the same procedures he alleges were unlawful.
Status: Ongoing
View case
![Outside Federal Bureau of Investigation Headquarters](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2019/10/web19-fbi-building-kristi-blokhin-shutterstock.com-blogimage-1160x768-600x397.jpg)
U.S. Supreme Court
National Security
FBI v. Fikre
Whether the government can overcome the voluntary cessation exception to mootness by removing an individual from the No Fly List when the government has not repudiated its decision to place him on the List and remains free to return him to the List for the same reasons and using the same procedures he alleges were unlawful.
Dec 2023
Status: Ongoing
View case
Louisiana
Dec 2023
![Louisiana](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/03/Depositphotos_466919260_S-600x400.jpg)
Robinson v. Landry
Robinson challenged the congressional map that Louisiana enacted after the 2020 Census. ACLU and partners represented Plaintiffs the Louisiana State Conference of the NAACP, Power Coalition for Equity and Justice, and several impacted voters, and argued that the enacted plan violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In June 2022, the district court found Louisiana's congressional map unlawfully denied Black voters a second district in which Black voters had an equal opportunity to elect their candidates of choice. After appeals, the legislature passed a new map containing two majority Black districts in January 2024.
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
![Louisiana](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/03/Depositphotos_466919260_S-600x400.jpg)
Louisiana
Voting Rights
Robinson v. Landry
Robinson challenged the congressional map that Louisiana enacted after the 2020 Census. ACLU and partners represented Plaintiffs the Louisiana State Conference of the NAACP, Power Coalition for Equity and Justice, and several impacted voters, and argued that the enacted plan violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In June 2022, the district court found Louisiana's congressional map unlawfully denied Black voters a second district in which Black voters had an equal opportunity to elect their candidates of choice. After appeals, the legislature passed a new map containing two majority Black districts in January 2024.
Dec 2023
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
Arizona
Dec 2023
![Russell Toomey](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/web19-russelltoomey-1160x864-600x447.jpg)
Toomey v. State of Arizona
On January 23, 2019, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona filed a class action lawsuit against the State of Arizona and the Arizona Board of Regents for denying medically necessary, gender-affirming health care to transgender people employed by the state. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Dr. Russell B. Toomey, an associate professor of family studies and human development at the University of Arizona, and all other transgender individuals employed by the Arizona Board of Regents or enrolled in the State health plan, including dependents.
Status: Closed
View case
![Russell Toomey](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/web19-russelltoomey-1160x864-600x447.jpg)
Arizona
LGBTQ Rights
Toomey v. State of Arizona
On January 23, 2019, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona filed a class action lawsuit against the State of Arizona and the Arizona Board of Regents for denying medically necessary, gender-affirming health care to transgender people employed by the state. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Dr. Russell B. Toomey, an associate professor of family studies and human development at the University of Arizona, and all other transgender individuals employed by the Arizona Board of Regents or enrolled in the State health plan, including dependents.
Dec 2023
Status: Closed
View case