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
Colorado
Nov 2023
![Sellers v. People](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Sellers v. People
In September 2023, the ACLU, the ACLU of Colorado, The Boston University Center for Antiracist Research, the law firm Mintz Levin, and other partners filed an amicus brief with the Colorado Supreme Court arguing that mandatory life-without-parole (LWOP) sentences for strict liability felony murder are “cruel and unusual” in violation of the Colorado and U.S. Constitutions. The brief focuses on how these mandatory LWOP sentences drive racial injustice.
Status: Ongoing
View case
![Sellers v. People](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Colorado
Racial Justice
Criminal Law Reform
Sellers v. People
In September 2023, the ACLU, the ACLU of Colorado, The Boston University Center for Antiracist Research, the law firm Mintz Levin, and other partners filed an amicus brief with the Colorado Supreme Court arguing that mandatory life-without-parole (LWOP) sentences for strict liability felony murder are “cruel and unusual” in violation of the Colorado and U.S. Constitutions. The brief focuses on how these mandatory LWOP sentences drive racial injustice.
Nov 2023
Status: Ongoing
View case
Kentucky Supreme Court
Nov 2023
![KY](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/11/Depositphotos_466943004_S-600x400.jpg)
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Graham (Amicus)
State legislatures are responsible for creating state legislative and U.S. congressional districts. In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Rucho v. Common Cause that federal courts have no authority to review claims that states have sorted voters along partisan lines to favor one political party over others. However, challenges to partisan gerrymandering continue in many state courts, and this case involves one such constitutional challenge in Kentucky.
Status: Closed
View case
![KY](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/11/Depositphotos_466943004_S-600x400.jpg)
Kentucky Supreme Court
Voting Rights
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Graham (Amicus)
State legislatures are responsible for creating state legislative and U.S. congressional districts. In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Rucho v. Common Cause that federal courts have no authority to review claims that states have sorted voters along partisan lines to favor one political party over others. However, challenges to partisan gerrymandering continue in many state courts, and this case involves one such constitutional challenge in Kentucky.
Nov 2023
Status: Closed
View case
New Jersey Supreme Court
Nov 2023
![Usachenok v. State of New Jersey](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Usachenok v. State of New Jersey
The New Jersey Department of Treasury maintains a policy that requires employers investigating workplace discrimination to “request” confidentiality from all witnesses with respect to any information related to the investigation. This case involves whether a confidentiality policy of this kind violates the free speech rights under the New Jersey Constitution of state employees who are witnesses, and whether those rights are broader than the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment free speech right. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative and Women’s Rights Project, along with the ACLU of New Jersey, filed an amicus brief in the New Jersey Supreme Court, urging that court to revive a government employee’s speech claim challenging the confidentiality policy and to interpret the New Jersey Constitution’s speech protection more broadly than federal constitutional law. In April 2024, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in our favor and reversed the judgment of the Appellate Division.
Status: Ongoing
View case
![Usachenok v. State of New Jersey](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
New Jersey Supreme Court
Women's Rights
Free Speech
Usachenok v. State of New Jersey
The New Jersey Department of Treasury maintains a policy that requires employers investigating workplace discrimination to “request” confidentiality from all witnesses with respect to any information related to the investigation. This case involves whether a confidentiality policy of this kind violates the free speech rights under the New Jersey Constitution of state employees who are witnesses, and whether those rights are broader than the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment free speech right. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative and Women’s Rights Project, along with the ACLU of New Jersey, filed an amicus brief in the New Jersey Supreme Court, urging that court to revive a government employee’s speech claim challenging the confidentiality policy and to interpret the New Jersey Constitution’s speech protection more broadly than federal constitutional law. In April 2024, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in our favor and reversed the judgment of the Appellate Division.
Nov 2023
Status: Ongoing
View case
Nevada Supreme Court
Nov 2023
![Cannabis Equity & Inclusion Community v. Nevada Board of Pharmacy](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Cannabis Equity & Inclusion Community v. Nevada Board of Pharmacy
Nevadans, like voters in many states, have chosen to legalize marijuana for medicinal and recreational use. In Nevada, these changes—adopted through citizen ballot initiatives and, in the case of medical marijuana, enshrined in the Nevada Constitution—were intended to ensure that marijuana is regulated much like alcohol and that law enforcement resources are focused on violent crime, not the prosecution of non-violent drug offenses. Despite these legal changes, Nevada’s Board of Pharmacy continues to regulate marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance for purposes of state law, akin to the Board’s treatment of cocaine and fentanyl. The Board’s scheduling designation for marijuana has enormous implications for criminal defendants in Nevada since state law makes it a felony to possess or engage in certain other activity with respect to a Schedule I controlled substance, as designated by the Board.
This case, brought by an individual and organization harmed by the Board’s scheduling designation for marijuana, involves the question whether the designation violates the Nevada Constitution and state statutes. The ACLU of Nevada is counsel in the case, and the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative is co-counsel on appeal.
Status: Ongoing
View case
![Cannabis Equity & Inclusion Community v. Nevada Board of Pharmacy](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Nevada Supreme Court
Criminal Law Reform
Smart Justice
Cannabis Equity & Inclusion Community v. Nevada Board of Pharmacy
Nevadans, like voters in many states, have chosen to legalize marijuana for medicinal and recreational use. In Nevada, these changes—adopted through citizen ballot initiatives and, in the case of medical marijuana, enshrined in the Nevada Constitution—were intended to ensure that marijuana is regulated much like alcohol and that law enforcement resources are focused on violent crime, not the prosecution of non-violent drug offenses. Despite these legal changes, Nevada’s Board of Pharmacy continues to regulate marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance for purposes of state law, akin to the Board’s treatment of cocaine and fentanyl. The Board’s scheduling designation for marijuana has enormous implications for criminal defendants in Nevada since state law makes it a felony to possess or engage in certain other activity with respect to a Schedule I controlled substance, as designated by the Board.
This case, brought by an individual and organization harmed by the Board’s scheduling designation for marijuana, involves the question whether the designation violates the Nevada Constitution and state statutes. The ACLU of Nevada is counsel in the case, and the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative is co-counsel on appeal.
Nov 2023
Status: Ongoing
View case
Utah Supreme Court
Nov 2023
![Natalie R. v. State of Utah](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Natalie R. v. State of Utah
In recent years, federal courts have relied on what’s called the “political question doctrine” to refuse to review legal claims of wrongdoing, even those involving egregious constitutional harm. Using the political question doctrine, federal courts have turned away claims from people seeking justice on the theory that court review of those claims would embroil the courts in matters best left to the political process. Whether state courts should adopt a parallel political question doctrine—and thus limit access to justice for people whose civil rights and liberties have been violated—is an open question in many states. This case involves the scope of Utah courts’ authority to review important constitutional claims.
View case
![Natalie R. v. State of Utah](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Utah Supreme Court
Prisoners' Rights
Natalie R. v. State of Utah
In recent years, federal courts have relied on what’s called the “political question doctrine” to refuse to review legal claims of wrongdoing, even those involving egregious constitutional harm. Using the political question doctrine, federal courts have turned away claims from people seeking justice on the theory that court review of those claims would embroil the courts in matters best left to the political process. Whether state courts should adopt a parallel political question doctrine—and thus limit access to justice for people whose civil rights and liberties have been violated—is an open question in many states. This case involves the scope of Utah courts’ authority to review important constitutional claims.
Nov 2023
View case