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
1,452 Court Cases
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2021
![Little Rock Family Planning Services, et al., v. Rutledge, et al.](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Little Rock Family Planning Services, et al., v. Rutledge, et al.
In 2019, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit challenging three Arkansas laws that sought to severely restrict abortion rights in the state. These laws would ban abortion care starting at 18 weeks of pregnancy, ban abortion based on the woman’s reason for her decision, and prohibit qualified physicians from continuing to safely provide abortion care for no conceivable health or medical purpose, thereby imposing an unconstitutional burden on patients seeking abortion care in the state. In 2019, we successfully obtained a preliminary injunction, blocking these laws from taking effect. In January of 2021 the Eighth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction of the 18-week ban and ban based on a patient’s reason for seeking care.
Status: Ongoing
View case
![Little Rock Family Planning Services, et al., v. Rutledge, et al.](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
U.S. Supreme Court
Reproductive Freedom
Little Rock Family Planning Services, et al., v. Rutledge, et al.
In 2019, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit challenging three Arkansas laws that sought to severely restrict abortion rights in the state. These laws would ban abortion care starting at 18 weeks of pregnancy, ban abortion based on the woman’s reason for her decision, and prohibit qualified physicians from continuing to safely provide abortion care for no conceivable health or medical purpose, thereby imposing an unconstitutional burden on patients seeking abortion care in the state. In 2019, we successfully obtained a preliminary injunction, blocking these laws from taking effect. In January of 2021 the Eighth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction of the 18-week ban and ban based on a patient’s reason for seeking care.
Jun 2021
Status: Ongoing
View case
Jun 2021
![Woman looking depressed](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/WEB16-florida-abortion-600x447.jpg)
Bryant et al. v. Woodall et al.
The American Civil Liberties Union, along with Planned Parenthood and the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a federal lawsuit that seeks to overturn North Carolina’s unconstitutional law that prevents doctors from providing abortion care to a woman after the twentieth week of pregnancy.
Status: Ongoing
View case
![Woman looking depressed](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/WEB16-florida-abortion-600x447.jpg)
Reproductive Freedom
Bryant et al. v. Woodall et al.
The American Civil Liberties Union, along with Planned Parenthood and the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a federal lawsuit that seeks to overturn North Carolina’s unconstitutional law that prevents doctors from providing abortion care to a woman after the twentieth week of pregnancy.
Jun 2021
Status: Ongoing
View case
Arkansas
May 2021
![Little Rock Family Planning Services, et al., v. Larry Jegley, et al.](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Little Rock Family Planning Services, et al., v. Larry Jegley, et al.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Arkansas, and Planned Parenthood Federation filed a lawsuit challenging Arkansas’s new total ban on abortion.
Status: Ongoing
View case
![Little Rock Family Planning Services, et al., v. Larry Jegley, et al.](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Arkansas
Reproductive Freedom
Little Rock Family Planning Services, et al., v. Larry Jegley, et al.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Arkansas, and Planned Parenthood Federation filed a lawsuit challenging Arkansas’s new total ban on abortion.
May 2021
Status: Ongoing
View case
May 2021
![Image showing the symbol of the International Criminal Court on a window at the Hague](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/custom-banner-ICC-hague-sadat-v-trump-600x447.jpg)
Sadat v. Trump - Challenge to Trump's International Criminal Court’s Sanctions Regime
On January 15, 2021, the ACLU and Covington & Burling LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of three law faculty and an ACLU human rights attorney challenging former President Trump’s executive order authorizing sanctions against people who assist the International Criminal Court in investigating or prosecuting war crimes and other gross human rights violations.
Status: Closed (Voluntarily Dismissed)
View case
![Image showing the symbol of the International Criminal Court on a window at the Hague](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/custom-banner-ICC-hague-sadat-v-trump-600x447.jpg)
National Security
Free Speech
Sadat v. Trump - Challenge to Trump's International Criminal Court’s Sanctions Regime
On January 15, 2021, the ACLU and Covington & Burling LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of three law faculty and an ACLU human rights attorney challenging former President Trump’s executive order authorizing sanctions against people who assist the International Criminal Court in investigating or prosecuting war crimes and other gross human rights violations.
May 2021
Status: Closed (Voluntarily Dismissed)
View case
North Carolina
May 2021
![Carcaño, et al. v. Cooper, et al](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Carcaño, et al. v. Cooper, et al
Filed by the ACLU and the ACLU of North Carolina along with Lambda Legal, this lawsuit challenges a sweeping North Carolina law, House Bill 2 , which bans transgender people from accessing restrooms and other facilities consistent with their gender identity and blocks local governments from protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (“LGBT”) people against discrimination in a wide variety of settings., and its replacement law, HB 142, which left many of the harms caused by HB 2 in place.
Status: Closed
View case
![Carcaño, et al. v. Cooper, et al](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
North Carolina
LGBTQ Rights
Carcaño, et al. v. Cooper, et al
Filed by the ACLU and the ACLU of North Carolina along with Lambda Legal, this lawsuit challenges a sweeping North Carolina law, House Bill 2 , which bans transgender people from accessing restrooms and other facilities consistent with their gender identity and blocks local governments from protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (“LGBT”) people against discrimination in a wide variety of settings., and its replacement law, HB 142, which left many of the harms caused by HB 2 in place.
May 2021
Status: Closed
View case