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://wp.api.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://wp.api.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://wp.api.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
Alabama
Feb 2017
![Clients from Uniontown in the case Green Group Holdings v. Schaeffer](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/WEB16-greengroupfinal-1160x864-600x447.jpg)
Green Group Holdings v. Schaeffer: Defense of Environmental Protesters Against Defamation Lawsuit
The ACLU is representing four people being sued for defamation because they exercised their right to free speech and voiced opposition to a coal ash landfill in their small town. The defendants, all residents of Uniontown, Alabama — a poor, predominantly Black town with a median per capita income of around $8,000 — are being sued for $30 million by Georgia-based Green Group Holdings because the residents are fighting the hazardous coal ash that the company keeps in a residential landfill. The ACLU asked a federal court to dismiss the lawsuit on First Amendment grounds. In February 2017, the parties reached a settlement in which the company dropped the lawsuit and agreed to better environmental protections at the landfill.
Status: Closed (Settled)
View case
![Clients from Uniontown in the case Green Group Holdings v. Schaeffer](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/WEB16-greengroupfinal-1160x864-600x447.jpg)
Alabama
Free Speech
Racial Justice
Green Group Holdings v. Schaeffer: Defense of Environmental Protesters Against Defamation Lawsuit
The ACLU is representing four people being sued for defamation because they exercised their right to free speech and voiced opposition to a coal ash landfill in their small town. The defendants, all residents of Uniontown, Alabama — a poor, predominantly Black town with a median per capita income of around $8,000 — are being sued for $30 million by Georgia-based Green Group Holdings because the residents are fighting the hazardous coal ash that the company keeps in a residential landfill. The ACLU asked a federal court to dismiss the lawsuit on First Amendment grounds. In February 2017, the parties reached a settlement in which the company dropped the lawsuit and agreed to better environmental protections at the landfill.
Feb 2017
Status: Closed (Settled)
View case
Jan 2017
![Morales v. Chadbourne](https://wp.api.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Morales v. Chadbourne
Ada Morales is a naturalized U.S. citizen who has been erroneously detained by Rhode Island law enforcement officials on immigration detainers not once, but twice—first in July 2004, and again in May 2009. Her lawsuit arises out of her 2009 imprisonment.
View case
![Morales v. Chadbourne](https://wp.api.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Immigrants' Rights
Morales v. Chadbourne
Ada Morales is a naturalized U.S. citizen who has been erroneously detained by Rhode Island law enforcement officials on immigration detainers not once, but twice—first in July 2004, and again in May 2009. Her lawsuit arises out of her 2009 imprisonment.
Jan 2017
View case
Massachusetts
Jan 2017
![Bridgeman et. al v. District Attorney for Suffolk County et. al](https://wp.api.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Bridgeman et. al v. District Attorney for Suffolk County et. al
Update: On January 18, 2017, the Massachusetts Supreme Court directed district attorneys to dismiss thousands of drug offense cases that were tainted by the misconduct of chemist Annie Dookhan. Prosecutors must produce a list of all drug convictions they plan to dismiss, and also produce a list of cases that they wish to re-prosecute, both within 90 days. They will be permitted to re-prosecute cases only if they certify they can do so on the basis of untainted evidence. The people hurt by Annie Dookhan’s actions deserve justice from the prosecutors who have the power to right thousands of grave wrongs by dismissing these cases.
View case
![Bridgeman et. al v. District Attorney for Suffolk County et. al](https://wp.api.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Massachusetts
Smart Justice
Criminal Law Reform
Bridgeman et. al v. District Attorney for Suffolk County et. al
Update: On January 18, 2017, the Massachusetts Supreme Court directed district attorneys to dismiss thousands of drug offense cases that were tainted by the misconduct of chemist Annie Dookhan. Prosecutors must produce a list of all drug convictions they plan to dismiss, and also produce a list of cases that they wish to re-prosecute, both within 90 days. They will be permitted to re-prosecute cases only if they certify they can do so on the basis of untainted evidence. The people hurt by Annie Dookhan’s actions deserve justice from the prosecutors who have the power to right thousands of grave wrongs by dismissing these cases.
Jan 2017
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2017
![Packingham v. North Carolina](https://wp.api.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Packingham v. North Carolina
Whether North Carolina can prohibit individuals who are registered sex offenders from “accessing” any social media websites.
Status: Ongoing
View case
![Packingham v. North Carolina](https://wp.api.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
U.S. Supreme Court
Free Speech
Packingham v. North Carolina
Whether North Carolina can prohibit individuals who are registered sex offenders from “accessing” any social media websites.
Jan 2017
Status: Ongoing
View case
Jan 2017
![NSA headquarters](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/WEB16-NSA-headquarters-1160x864-600x447.jpg)
ACLU v. NSA – FOIA Lawsuit Seeking Records of Government Use of Section 702 of FISA
Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act permits warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international communications, and the government has used that authority to seize and search the personal communications of Americans and others on an immense scale. In September 2016, the ACLU submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to several government agencies seeking basic information about how the government conducts surveillance under Section 702. In November 2016, we filed a lawsuit to enforce the request in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Status: Ongoing
View case
![NSA headquarters](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/WEB16-NSA-headquarters-1160x864-600x447.jpg)
National Security
ACLU v. NSA – FOIA Lawsuit Seeking Records of Government Use of Section 702 of FISA
Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act permits warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international communications, and the government has used that authority to seize and search the personal communications of Americans and others on an immense scale. In September 2016, the ACLU submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to several government agencies seeking basic information about how the government conducts surveillance under Section 702. In November 2016, we filed a lawsuit to enforce the request in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Jan 2017
Status: Ongoing
View case