Supreme Court Term 2024-2025
We’re breaking down the cases we've asked the court to consider this term.
Latest Case Updates
Ongoing
Updated April 9, 2025
Ongoing
Updated March 24, 2025
Ongoing
Updated March 11, 2025
Ongoing
Updated January 23, 2025
Featured
Washington, D.C.
Apr 2025
Voting Rights
League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump
On March 25, 2025, in a sweeping and unprecedented Executive Order, President Trump attempted to usurp the power to regulate federal elections from Congress and the States. Among other things, the Executive Order directs the Election Assistance Commission—an agency that Congress specifically established to be bipartisan and independent—to require voters to show a passport or other citizenship documentation in order to register to vote in federal elections. If implemented, the Executive Order would threaten the ability of millions of eligible Americans to register and vote and upend the administration of federal elections.
On behalf of leading voter registration organizations and advocacy organizations, the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ and co-counsel filed a lawsuit to block the Executive Order as an unconstitutional power grab.
Maryland
Apr 2025
Religious Liberty
LGBTQ Rights
Mahmoud v. McKnight
On April 9, 2025, the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ and ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of Maryland filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) in its efforts to ensure that its English Language Arts curriculum is LGBTQ-inclusive.
U.S. Supreme Court
Mar 2025
Voting Rights
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.
New Hampshire
Mar 2025
Voting Rights
Coalition for Open Democracy v. Scanlan
This lawsuit challenges HB 1569, a new law that will make New Hampshire the only state to require every person to produce documentary proof of citizenship when they register to vote for both state and federal elections. It also challenges HB 1569’s elimination a preexisting protection for voters—namely, an affidavit option that allowed voters who faced surprise challenges to their eligibility at the polls to swear to their qualifications and cast a ballot. Accordingly, HB 1569 violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution by placing substantial burdens on New Hampshirites at all stages of the voting process, and will arbitrarily disenfranchise hundreds, if not thousands of qualified voters.
South Carolina Supreme Court
Jan 2025
Voting Rights
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.
Louisiana
Jan 2025
Voting Rights
Nairne v. Landry
Nairne v. Landry poses a challenge under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to Louisiana’s House and Senate legislative maps on behalf of plaintiff Black voters and Black voters across the state.
Georgia
Oct 2024
Voting Rights
Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc. v. Georgia
The ºìÐÓÊÓƵ and partner organizations have sought to intervene in this case to represent the rights of voters and voting-rights organizations in a case challenging a number of rules passed by the Georgia State Election Board. We challenge a rule that requires that the number of votes cast be hand counted at the polling place prior to the tabulation of votes. This rule risks delay and spoliation of ballots, putting in danger voters’ rights to have their votes count.
Texas
Oct 2024
Voting Rights
OCA-Greater Houston v. Paxton
Texas has growing Hispanic and Black populations that helped propel record voter turnout in the November 2020 election. The Texas Legislature responded to this increased civic participation with an omnibus election bill titled Senate Bill 1—SB 1 for short—that targeted election practices that made voting more accessible to traditionally marginalized voters like voters of color, voters with disabilities, and voters with limited English proficiency. Since 2021, SB 1 has resulted in tens of thousands of lawful votes being rejected, and it remains a threat to democracy in Texas.
Ohio
Sep 2024
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region et al., v. Ohio Department of Health, et al.
The ºìÐÓÊÓƵ, the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ 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.
All Cases
1,563 Court Cases
Washington, D.C.
Apr 2025
Immigrants' Rights
National Security
Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center v. Noem
Immigrants’ rights advocates sued the Trump administration on Feb. 12, 2025, for access to immigrants transferred from the United States to detention at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba under President Trump’s recent order.
Explore case
Washington, D.C.
Apr 2025
Immigrants' Rights
National Security
Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center v. Noem
Immigrants’ rights advocates sued the Trump administration on Feb. 12, 2025, for access to immigrants transferred from the United States to detention at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba under President Trump’s recent order.
Court Case
Apr 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Orr v. Trump
On his first day back in office in January 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order that led the State Department to suspend its policy allowing transgender, intersex, and nonbinary people to update the sex designations on their passports, leading some with pending applications to have their passports withheld from them and others to receive a new passport with the wrong sex designation listed. Soon after, the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ sued on behalf of seven transgender and nonbinary people on the grounds the policy violates their constitutional rights and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Explore case
Court Case
Apr 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Orr v. Trump
On his first day back in office in January 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order that led the State Department to suspend its policy allowing transgender, intersex, and nonbinary people to update the sex designations on their passports, leading some with pending applications to have their passports withheld from them and others to receive a new passport with the wrong sex designation listed. Soon after, the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ sued on behalf of seven transgender and nonbinary people on the grounds the policy violates their constitutional rights and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Idaho
Apr 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Robinson v. Labrador
Two incarcerated transgender women have sued the state of Idaho alleging that HB 688, a 2024 law barring state funding for gender-affirming medical care for transgender people, denies them access to the health care their doctors have prescribed for them and is a violation of their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. They represent a class of all incarcerated folks within the state of Idaho who face the loss of hormone therapy due to HB 668.
Explore case
Idaho
Apr 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Robinson v. Labrador
Two incarcerated transgender women have sued the state of Idaho alleging that HB 688, a 2024 law barring state funding for gender-affirming medical care for transgender people, denies them access to the health care their doctors have prescribed for them and is a violation of their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. They represent a class of all incarcerated folks within the state of Idaho who face the loss of hormone therapy due to HB 668.
New York
Apr 2025
Free Speech
In Re: Application of Isaac Levi Pilant, for an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to Conduct Discovery for Use in a Foreign Proceeding
Explore case
New York
Apr 2025
Free Speech
In Re: Application of Isaac Levi Pilant, for an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to Conduct Discovery for Use in a Foreign Proceeding
Court Case
Apr 2025
Reproductive Freedom
National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association v. Kennedy
The National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA), the lead national advocacy organization for the Title X family planning program, and the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ and the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration over its unlawful withholding of $65.8 million in Title X federal family planning grants. Title X is the country’s only dedicated federally funded family planning program that provides access to preventive care like birth control, cancer screening, and STI screening and treatment, with priority given to patients with low incomes.
As a result of the Trump administration’s unlawful actions, at least seven states — California, Hawaii, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, and Utah — have been left without any Title X-funded family planning services, and approximately 842,000 people have lost access to Title X-funded care.
Explore case
Court Case
Apr 2025
Reproductive Freedom
National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association v. Kennedy
The National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA), the lead national advocacy organization for the Title X family planning program, and the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ and the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration over its unlawful withholding of $65.8 million in Title X federal family planning grants. Title X is the country’s only dedicated federally funded family planning program that provides access to preventive care like birth control, cancer screening, and STI screening and treatment, with priority given to patients with low incomes.
As a result of the Trump administration’s unlawful actions, at least seven states — California, Hawaii, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, and Utah — have been left without any Title X-funded family planning services, and approximately 842,000 people have lost access to Title X-funded care.