The University of Florida chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine filed a lawsuit on November 16, 2023, challenging the Chancellor of the State University System of Florida’s order to state universities to deactivate the student group. This order threatens the students’ constitutionally-protected right to free speech and association in violation of the First Amendment. The ACLU and its partners are seeking a preliminary injunction that would bar the Chancellor and the University of Florida from deactivating the UF SJP.

On October 30, 2023, the ACLU and ACLU of Maryland filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit supporting the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) in its efforts to ensure that its English curriculum is LGBTQ-inclusive.

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face.

Do employees claiming that they have been denied a transfer because of their race have to demonstrate in addition that the transfer caused a significant material disadvantage?

Whether police officers violated clearly established First Amendment rights when they tear-gassed plaintiffs for serving as legal observers in a public protest.

Does the Double Jeopardy Clause bar an appellate court from reviewing and setting aside a jury’s verdicts of acquittal on the ground that the verdict is inconsistent with the jury’s verdict on other charges?

The ACLU, the ACLU of Northern California, and the ACLU of Southern California filed amicus briefs in support of everyday people fighting for government transparency and accountability in two cases set for review by the U.S. Supreme Court this Term: O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed.

Whether a “tester” has standing to challenge a place of public accommodation’s illegal failure to provide disability accessibility information on its website, even if she does not intend to visit that place of public accommodation.

This case involves the interpretation of a federal law that allows defendants to avoid mandatory minimum sentences for certain nonviolent drug crimes, allowing judges to impose sentences tailored to their individual circumstances.