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)
Spung 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: Closed (Judgment)
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
1,451 Court Cases
U.S. Supreme Court
May 2023
![vbm](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/03/vbm-600x400.jpg)
Ritter v. Migliori
Pennsylvania mail ballot voters successfully challenged a rule that would have invalidated their votes because of a meaningless paperwork error on the return envelope.
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
![vbm](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/03/vbm-600x400.jpg)
U.S. Supreme Court
Voting Rights
Ritter v. Migliori
Pennsylvania mail ballot voters successfully challenged a rule that would have invalidated their votes because of a meaningless paperwork error on the return envelope.
May 2023
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
May 2023
![ms](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/02/Mississippi-1-600x282.jpg)
Harness v. Watson (Amicus)
Whether Mississippi’s 1890 felony disenfranchisement law, adopted for the express purpose of disenfranchising Black voters, violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal. Protection Clause.
Status: Ongoing
View case
![ms](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/02/Mississippi-1-600x282.jpg)
U.S. Supreme Court
Voting Rights
Racial Justice
Harness v. Watson (Amicus)
Whether Mississippi’s 1890 felony disenfranchisement law, adopted for the express purpose of disenfranchising Black voters, violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal. Protection Clause.
May 2023
Status: Ongoing
View case
May 2023
![iPhone with "Get a Warrant - ACLU" sticker](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2019/09/web16-blog-getawarrant-1160x768-600x397.jpg)
The Warrant Clause in the Digital Age
The information generated by today’s digital devices and online services reveals private matters far beyond what one could learn from physical analogs. In a series of legal filings and a white paper, available below, the ACLU has argued that to keep apace with technological developments and adequately protect our privacy, the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement must be interpreted robustly. Seizures and searches of digital data must be cabined to probable cause, limited to specific categories of information relevant to the investigation, and closely overseen by a neutral magistrate.
View case
![iPhone with "Get a Warrant - ACLU" sticker](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2019/09/web16-blog-getawarrant-1160x768-600x397.jpg)
Privacy & Technology
National Security
The Warrant Clause in the Digital Age
The information generated by today’s digital devices and online services reveals private matters far beyond what one could learn from physical analogs. In a series of legal filings and a white paper, available below, the ACLU has argued that to keep apace with technological developments and adequately protect our privacy, the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement must be interpreted robustly. Seizures and searches of digital data must be cabined to probable cause, limited to specific categories of information relevant to the investigation, and closely overseen by a neutral magistrate.
May 2023
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
May 2023
![Gonzalez v. Trevino](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Gonzalez v. Trevino
This case is about what a plaintiff must demonstrate to sustain allegations that police arrested them in retaliation for First Amendment–protected expression. While retaliatory arrest plaintiffs generally must show that police lacked probable cause to arrest them, the petitioner in this case correctly argues that a recognized exception to that rule, for cases where police typically exercise discretion not to arrest people, must be robust to protect the free speech of government critics.
Status: Ongoing
View case
![Gonzalez v. Trevino](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
U.S. Supreme Court
Free Speech
Gonzalez v. Trevino
This case is about what a plaintiff must demonstrate to sustain allegations that police arrested them in retaliation for First Amendment–protected expression. While retaliatory arrest plaintiffs generally must show that police lacked probable cause to arrest them, the petitioner in this case correctly argues that a recognized exception to that rule, for cases where police typically exercise discretion not to arrest people, must be robust to protect the free speech of government critics.
May 2023
Status: Ongoing
View case
Florida
Apr 2023
![Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida, et al. v. State of Florida, et al.](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida, et al. v. State of Florida, et al.
On January 23, 2023, the Florida Supreme Court accepted a request by abortion providers to hear arguments in their case against House Bill 5 (HB 5), a ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy that threatens to put doctors in jail for providing essential care beyond that point. The move comes after several court rulings closed off meaningful legal avenues to block the law. While providers’ request for the court to hear arguments in the case was granted, the justices declined to immediately block HB 5 while the lawsuit proceeds, leaving the ban in place for now.
Status: Ongoing
View case
![Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida, et al. v. State of Florida, et al.](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Florida
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida, et al. v. State of Florida, et al.
On January 23, 2023, the Florida Supreme Court accepted a request by abortion providers to hear arguments in their case against House Bill 5 (HB 5), a ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy that threatens to put doctors in jail for providing essential care beyond that point. The move comes after several court rulings closed off meaningful legal avenues to block the law. While providers’ request for the court to hear arguments in the case was granted, the justices declined to immediately block HB 5 while the lawsuit proceeds, leaving the ban in place for now.
Apr 2023
Status: Ongoing
View case