Stayed
June 13, 2023
Advocating For Access to Safe, Legal Abortion Medication
Danco Laboratories, LLC, v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine; U.S. FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine
The American Civil Liberties Union joined over 200 reproductive health, rights, and justice organizations in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in support of an emergency request to stay a decision issued by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that severely restricted the use of mifepristone — a medication used in most abortions in this country — and threatened the innovation of new drugs and the ability of Americans to access lifesaving drugs.
What you can do
Defend Reproductive Freedom Now
Defend Reproductive Freedom Now
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.
Featured
U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 2024
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
Status: Ongoing
View case
Texas
Mar 2024
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
Montana Supreme Court
Mar 2024
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
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
Mississippi
Feb 2024
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
U.S. Supreme Court
Dec 2023
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
Arkansas
Dec 2023
NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment
This case has two key parts: First, the Arkansas House district map diminishes the voting power of Black voters. Second, both the district court and Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals radically concluded that voters may not sue to protect their voting rights under Section 2, putting the VRA in further jeopardy and contradicting decades of precedent in which impacted voters — particularly Black voters — have challenged racially discriminatory voting laws.
Status: Ongoing
View case
Florida
Nov 2023
Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of Florida v. Raymond Rodrigues
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.
Status: Ongoing
View case
All Cases
1,414 Court Cases
Montana
Apr 2024
Van Garderen et al v. State of Montana
Transgender adolescents, their parents, and two medical providers who work with transgender youth are challenging a 2023 Montana law that bans gender-affirming care for trans youth. The plaintiffs charge the law with violating their rights under the Montana Constitution, including the right to equal protection, the right to access medical care, and the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children.
Status: Ongoing
View case
Montana
LGBTQ Rights
Van Garderen et al v. State of Montana
Transgender adolescents, their parents, and two medical providers who work with transgender youth are challenging a 2023 Montana law that bans gender-affirming care for trans youth. The plaintiffs charge the law with violating their rights under the Montana Constitution, including the right to equal protection, the right to access medical care, and the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children.
Apr 2024
Status: Ongoing
View case
Texas
Apr 2024
PFLAG v. Office of the Attorney General of Texas
Following a request from the Office of the Attorney General of Texas for records and documents related to its advocacy on behalf of families with transgender youth, PFLAG National sued to block the request in February 2024. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and other LGBTQ legal organizations, PFLAG is also a plaintiff in two lawsuits in Texas relating to gender-affirming care for minors.
Status: Ongoing
View case
Texas
LGBTQ Rights
PFLAG v. Office of the Attorney General of Texas
Following a request from the Office of the Attorney General of Texas for records and documents related to its advocacy on behalf of families with transgender youth, PFLAG National sued to block the request in February 2024. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and other LGBTQ legal organizations, PFLAG is also a plaintiff in two lawsuits in Texas relating to gender-affirming care for minors.
Apr 2024
Status: Ongoing
View case
Ohio
Apr 2024
Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, et al. v. Ohio Department of Health, et al.
In December 2020, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed into law Senate Bill 27, a fetal tissue disposal requirement that mandates burial or cremation of all embryonic and fetal tissue from a procedural abortion, imposing severe burdens on patients and stigmatizing essential care. On January 31, 2022, an Ohio judge preliminarily enjoined the law, finding that the law likely violates the Ohio state constitution’s guarantees of due process and equal protection. The victory follows a previous April 5, 2021 preliminary injunction halting enforcement of the law, because compliance would have been impossible due to the Ohio Department of Health’s (ODH) failure to establish necessary rules and regulations. The law is currently blocked from taking effect. In April 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint challenging the law under the Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment of the Ohio Constitution. Litigation continues in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas.
This lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Ohio, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and Fanon Rucker of the Cochran Law Firm on behalf of Ohio abortion providers.
Status: Ongoing
View case
Ohio
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, et al. v. Ohio Department of Health, et al.
In December 2020, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed into law Senate Bill 27, a fetal tissue disposal requirement that mandates burial or cremation of all embryonic and fetal tissue from a procedural abortion, imposing severe burdens on patients and stigmatizing essential care. On January 31, 2022, an Ohio judge preliminarily enjoined the law, finding that the law likely violates the Ohio state constitution’s guarantees of due process and equal protection. The victory follows a previous April 5, 2021 preliminary injunction halting enforcement of the law, because compliance would have been impossible due to the Ohio Department of Health’s (ODH) failure to establish necessary rules and regulations. The law is currently blocked from taking effect. In April 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint challenging the law under the Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment of the Ohio Constitution. Litigation continues in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas.
This lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Ohio, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and Fanon Rucker of the Cochran Law Firm on behalf of Ohio abortion providers.
Apr 2024
Status: Ongoing
View case
Indiana
Apr 2024
K.C. v. Medical Licensing Board of Indiana
Four Hoosier families, joined by medical providers, are challenging an Indiana law passed in April 2023 barring access to gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Indiana is home to over 4,000 transgender adolescents and the health care targeted by this law is supported by the entire mainstream of the medical community.
Status: Ongoing
View case
Indiana
LGBTQ Rights
K.C. v. Medical Licensing Board of Indiana
Four Hoosier families, joined by medical providers, are challenging an Indiana law passed in April 2023 barring access to gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Indiana is home to over 4,000 transgender adolescents and the health care targeted by this law is supported by the entire mainstream of the medical community.
Apr 2024
Status: Ongoing
View case
Ohio
Apr 2024
Moe v. Yost
Two transgender adolescents and their families are challenging Ohio’s House Bill 68, a law passed in January 2024 that prohibits gender-affirming medical care that is widely accepted to treat gender dysphoria, helping alleviate the distress of gender dysphoria and significantly improving patients’ mental health and well-being. Such treatment is supported by leading medical experts and all major U.S. medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Status: Ongoing
View case
Ohio
LGBTQ Rights
Moe v. Yost
Two transgender adolescents and their families are challenging Ohio’s House Bill 68, a law passed in January 2024 that prohibits gender-affirming medical care that is widely accepted to treat gender dysphoria, helping alleviate the distress of gender dysphoria and significantly improving patients’ mental health and well-being. Such treatment is supported by leading medical experts and all major U.S. medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Apr 2024
Status: Ongoing
View case