Supreme Court Term 2024-2025
Were breaking down the cases we've asked the court to consider this term.
Latest Case Updates
Ongoing
Updated May 15, 2025
Ongoing
Updated May 8, 2025
Ongoing
Updated March 24, 2025
Ongoing
Updated March 11, 2025
Featured
U.S. Supreme Court
May 2025

Voting Rights
Racial Justice
Allen v. Milligan
Whether Alabamas congressional districts violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because they discriminate against Black voters. We succeeded in winning a new map for 2024 elections which, for the first time, has two congressional district that provide Black voters a fair opportunity to elect candidates of their choosing despite multiple attempts by Alabama to stop us at the Supreme Court. Despite this win, Alabama is still defending its discriminatory map, and a trial was held in February 2025 to determine the map for the rest of the decade.
In May 2025, a federal court ruled that Alabama's 2023 congressional map both violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and was enacted by the Alabama Legislature with racially discriminatory intent.
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 Commissionan agency that Congress specifically established to be bipartisan and independentto 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 勛圖眻畦 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 勛圖眻畦 and 勛圖眻畦 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 1569s elimination a preexisting protection for votersnamely, 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 Carolinas 2022 congressional redistricting plan, which legislators admit was drawn to entrench a 6-1 Republican majority in the states federal delegation. Plaintiff the League of Women Voters of South Carolina has asked the states Supreme Court to conclude that the congressional map is an unlawful partisan gerrymander that violates the state constitution.
Georgia
Oct 2024

Voting Rights
Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc. v. Georgia
The 勛圖眻畦 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 1SB 1 for shortthat 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 勛圖眻畦, the 勛圖眻畦 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, Womens 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
1,571 Court Cases

Idaho
Mar 2025
Immigrants' Rights
IDAHO ORGANIZATION OF RESOURCE COUNCILS v. LABRADOR
The 勛圖眻畦 of Idaho and the 勛圖眻畦 filed a lawsuit against Idaho to stop enforcement of House Bill 83, charging the law violates the U.S. Constitution by attempting to supersede the federal governments oversight of immigration enforcement, by impermissibly limiting interstate commerce, and by failing to give ordinary people fair notice of what conduct it proscribes.
Explore case
Idaho
Mar 2025

Immigrants' Rights
IDAHO ORGANIZATION OF RESOURCE COUNCILS v. LABRADOR
The 勛圖眻畦 of Idaho and the 勛圖眻畦 filed a lawsuit against Idaho to stop enforcement of House Bill 83, charging the law violates the U.S. Constitution by attempting to supersede the federal governments oversight of immigration enforcement, by impermissibly limiting interstate commerce, and by failing to give ordinary people fair notice of what conduct it proscribes.

Tennessee
Mar 2025
Criminal Law Reform
Smart Justice
Just City, Inc. v. Bonner
Shelby County (Memphis), Tennessee, historically set cash bail in criminal cases without stopping to ask whether people would be able to bail out. This practice unnecessarily detained people who could not afford to pay for release, but who would otherwise return to court and live peacefully in their communities. The 勛圖眻畦 Criminal Law Reform Project negotiated a historic settlement with Shelby County to end this practice.
In retaliation, the Tennessee legislature passed HB 1719, which prohibits judges from considering an arrestees ability to pay when setting bail. This law is unprecedented. Our lawsuit seeks to enjoin Shelby County officials from enforcing it.
Explore case
Tennessee
Mar 2025

Criminal Law Reform
Smart Justice
Just City, Inc. v. Bonner
Shelby County (Memphis), Tennessee, historically set cash bail in criminal cases without stopping to ask whether people would be able to bail out. This practice unnecessarily detained people who could not afford to pay for release, but who would otherwise return to court and live peacefully in their communities. The 勛圖眻畦 Criminal Law Reform Project negotiated a historic settlement with Shelby County to end this practice.
In retaliation, the Tennessee legislature passed HB 1719, which prohibits judges from considering an arrestees ability to pay when setting bail. This law is unprecedented. Our lawsuit seeks to enjoin Shelby County officials from enforcing it.

Hawaii
Mar 2025
Reproductive Freedom
Purcell v. Kennedy (formerly Chelius v. Becerra)
The 勛圖眻畦, the 勛圖眻畦 of Hawaii, and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholar LLP, are challenging a U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) restriction that severely limits where and how patients can access mifepristone, a safe and effective medication used for early abortion and miscarriage care.
Explore case
Hawaii
Mar 2025

Reproductive Freedom
Purcell v. Kennedy (formerly Chelius v. Becerra)
The 勛圖眻畦, the 勛圖眻畦 of Hawaii, and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholar LLP, are challenging a U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) restriction that severely limits where and how patients can access mifepristone, a safe and effective medication used for early abortion and miscarriage care.

Washington, D.C.
Mar 2025
Immigrants' Rights
J.G.G. v. TRUMP
The 勛圖眻畦, Democracy Forward, and the 勛圖眻畦 of the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration over the presidents unlawful and unprecedented invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. The Alien Enemies Act, passed in 1798, is a wartime authority providing that the president may after a public proclamation apprehend, restrain, and remove citizens of a foreign country that is engaged in a declared war or invasion or predatory incursion against the United States. The lawsuit charges that President Trump's invocation of a centuries-old wartime act unlawfully during peacetime to accelerate mass deportations, sidestepping the limits of this wartime authority and the procedures and protections in immigration law. The Alien Enemies Acts previous use during wartime for example, its invocation during World War II to justify the internment of people of Japanese ancestry has correctly drawn sustained criticism. Employing it as a way to evade domestic laws in peacetime is fundamentally wrong.
Explore case
Washington, D.C.
Mar 2025

Immigrants' Rights
J.G.G. v. TRUMP
The 勛圖眻畦, Democracy Forward, and the 勛圖眻畦 of the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration over the presidents unlawful and unprecedented invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. The Alien Enemies Act, passed in 1798, is a wartime authority providing that the president may after a public proclamation apprehend, restrain, and remove citizens of a foreign country that is engaged in a declared war or invasion or predatory incursion against the United States. The lawsuit charges that President Trump's invocation of a centuries-old wartime act unlawfully during peacetime to accelerate mass deportations, sidestepping the limits of this wartime authority and the procedures and protections in immigration law. The Alien Enemies Acts previous use during wartime for example, its invocation during World War II to justify the internment of people of Japanese ancestry has correctly drawn sustained criticism. Employing it as a way to evade domestic laws in peacetime is fundamentally wrong.

Massachusetts
Mar 2025
Free Speech
Schiff v. Office of Personnel Management
Explore case
Massachusetts
Mar 2025

Free Speech