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 June 26, 2024
Ongoing
Updated June 14, 2024
Ongoing
Updated June 14, 2024
Ongoing
Updated May 23, 2024
Featured
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
Florida
Mar 2024
![VT](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/02/section_civic_engagement.jpg)
Hispanic Federation v. Byrd
Of all 50 states, Florida ranks 47th in percentage of its eligible citizens who are registered to vote. Yet, in May 2023, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed SB 7050, which bars any noncitizen — regardless of lawful residence status — from working or volunteering for third-party voter registration organizations (3PVROs) who register eligible Floridians to vote. In practice, the law imposes a $50,000 fine on a 3PVRO for each noncitizen who engages in voter-registration work on a 3PVRO’s behalf. This law would silence and put out of business countless community-based groups that rely on both citizens and noncitizens to help eligible voters in their communities participate in their democracy.
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
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
1,439 Court Cases
New York
Jan 2024
![Mieles v. Ronald McDonald House](https://wp.api.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Mieles v. Ronald McDonald House
Mieles v. Ronald McDonald House of the Greater Hudson Valley et al. challenges a discriminatory housing policy that bans individuals with a wide range of convictions from critical housing without consideration of the nature, severity, or recency of the conviction or incident, or an individualized assessment. Such policies unjustly and disproportionately exclude Latine and Black people from housing, in violation of the Federal Housing Act and New York State Human Rights law.
Status: Ongoing
View case
![Mieles v. Ronald McDonald House](https://wp.api.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
New York
Racial Justice
Mieles v. Ronald McDonald House
Mieles v. Ronald McDonald House of the Greater Hudson Valley et al. challenges a discriminatory housing policy that bans individuals with a wide range of convictions from critical housing without consideration of the nature, severity, or recency of the conviction or incident, or an individualized assessment. Such policies unjustly and disproportionately exclude Latine and Black people from housing, in violation of the Federal Housing Act and New York State Human Rights law.
Jan 2024
Status: Ongoing
View case
New Jersey
Jan 2024
![Parks v. McCormac](https://wp.api.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Parks v. McCormac
On January 29, 2024, the ACLU and the ACLU of New Jersey filed an amicus brief in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in support of Plaintiff Nijeer Parks. The brief argues that law enforcement’s wrongful arrest of Mr. Parks due to police reliance on unreliable facial face recognition technology violated Mr. Parks’s constitutional rights.
Status: Ongoing
View case
![Parks v. McCormac](https://wp.api.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
New Jersey
Privacy & Technology
Parks v. McCormac
On January 29, 2024, the ACLU and the ACLU of New Jersey filed an amicus brief in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in support of Plaintiff Nijeer Parks. The brief argues that law enforcement’s wrongful arrest of Mr. Parks due to police reliance on unreliable facial face recognition technology violated Mr. Parks’s constitutional rights.
Jan 2024
Status: Ongoing
View case
Florida
Jan 2024
![LGBT flag](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2019/09/web15-lgbtyouth-flag-1160x768_0-600x397.jpg)
HM Florida-ORL, LLC v. Griffin
On January 24, 2024, the ACLU and ACLU of Florida filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit supporting HM Florida-ORL, which operates the restaurant and bar Hamburger Mary’s in Orlando, in its lawsuit alleging that a Florida law infringes upon minors’ First Amendment rights by prohibiting them from attending drag performances.
Status: Ongoing
View case
![LGBT flag](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2019/09/web15-lgbtyouth-flag-1160x768_0-600x397.jpg)
Florida
Free Speech
LGBTQ Rights
HM Florida-ORL, LLC v. Griffin
On January 24, 2024, the ACLU and ACLU of Florida filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit supporting HM Florida-ORL, which operates the restaurant and bar Hamburger Mary’s in Orlando, in its lawsuit alleging that a Florida law infringes upon minors’ First Amendment rights by prohibiting them from attending drag performances.
Jan 2024
Status: Ongoing
View case
Michigan
Jan 2024
![Robert Williams](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2020/06/WEB20-Robert-Williams-WordPress-1110x740-1-600x400.jpg)
Williams v. City of Detroit
This case seeks to hold Detroit police accountable for the wrongful arrest of our client due to officers’ reliance on a false match from face recognition technology.
Status: Closed (Settled)
View case
![Robert Williams](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2020/06/WEB20-Robert-Williams-WordPress-1110x740-1-600x400.jpg)
Michigan
Privacy & Technology
+2 Issues
Williams v. City of Detroit
This case seeks to hold Detroit police accountable for the wrongful arrest of our client due to officers’ reliance on a false match from face recognition technology.
Jan 2024
Status: Closed (Settled)
View case
Jan 2024
![.](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/01/Screenshot-2024-01-19-at-2.06.52 PM-1-600x328.png)
Abdullahi Khalif Noor v. Melissa Andrewjeski
Abdullahi Khalif Noor is a Somali refugee, who was a cab driver living in Seattle when convicted of rape and assault, and sentenced to life imprisonment. He has always maintained his innocence. He challenged his convictions in Washington state courts, arguing that prosecutors had suppressed evidence of his innocence in violation of due process and Brady v. Maryland.
Unsuccessful in the Washington state courts, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. He was again unsuccessful, and sought to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Ordinarily, when a party loses in federal district court they can immediately appeal the decision. But Mr. Noor was barred from doing so because he had not obtained a document Congress has required habeas petitioners receive from federal courts before they can appeal since 1908 — then called a certificate of probable cause, but now called a certificate of appealability (COA).
Status: Ongoing
View case
![.](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/01/Screenshot-2024-01-19-at-2.06.52 PM-1-600x328.png)
Criminal Law Reform
Capital Punishment
Abdullahi Khalif Noor v. Melissa Andrewjeski
Abdullahi Khalif Noor is a Somali refugee, who was a cab driver living in Seattle when convicted of rape and assault, and sentenced to life imprisonment. He has always maintained his innocence. He challenged his convictions in Washington state courts, arguing that prosecutors had suppressed evidence of his innocence in violation of due process and Brady v. Maryland.
Unsuccessful in the Washington state courts, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. He was again unsuccessful, and sought to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Ordinarily, when a party loses in federal district court they can immediately appeal the decision. But Mr. Noor was barred from doing so because he had not obtained a document Congress has required habeas petitioners receive from federal courts before they can appeal since 1908 — then called a certificate of probable cause, but now called a certificate of appealability (COA).
Jan 2024
Status: Ongoing
View case