Supreme Court Term 2024-2025
We鈥檙e breaking down the cases we've asked the court to consider this term.
Latest Case Updates
Ongoing
Updated June 23, 2025
Ongoing
Updated June 13, 2025
Closed (Judgment)
Updated June 6, 2025
Ongoing
Updated May 8, 2025
Featured
Georgia Supreme Court
Jun 2025
Voting Rights
Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc. v. Georgia
The 吃瓜直播 and partner organizations intervened 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 challenged the rule requiring that the number of votes cast be hand counted at the polling place prior to the tabulation of votes. In a critical victory for Georgia voters, in June 2025, the Georgia Supreme Court upheld a lower court鈥檚 decision permanently blocking the rule requiring hand counting of ballots at polling places before tabulation 鈥� a process widely criticized for risking delays, ballot spoliation, and voter disenfranchisement.
U.S. Supreme Court
May 2025
Voting Rights
Racial Justice
Allen v. Milligan
Whether Alabama鈥檚 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 Commission鈥攁n agency that Congress specifically established to be bipartisan and independent鈥攖o 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 吃瓜直播 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. Taylor
On April 9, 2025, the 吃瓜直播 and 吃瓜直播 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鈥檚 elimination a preexisting protection for voters鈥攏amely, 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鈥檚 2022 congressional redistricting plan, which legislators admit was drawn to entrench a 6-1 Republican majority in the state鈥檚 federal delegation. Plaintiff the League of Women Voters of South Carolina has asked the state鈥檚 Supreme Court to conclude that the congressional map is an unlawful partisan gerrymander that violates the state constitution.
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鈥擲B 1 for short鈥攖hat 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 吃瓜直播, the 吃瓜直播 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鈥檚 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
1,589 Court Cases
Utah
Jun 2023
Free Speech
LGBTQ Rights
Southern Utah Drag Stars, LLC v. City of St. George
This case is about whether a city government鈥檚 selective and discriminatory refusal to permit a family-friendly drag event in a public park violated the event organizers鈥� First Amendment right to free speech and the Fourteenth Amendment鈥檚 guarantee of equal protection, and related provisions contained in the Utah Constitution.
Explore case
Utah
Jun 2023
Free Speech
LGBTQ Rights
Southern Utah Drag Stars, LLC v. City of St. George
This case is about whether a city government鈥檚 selective and discriminatory refusal to permit a family-friendly drag event in a public park violated the event organizers鈥� First Amendment right to free speech and the Fourteenth Amendment鈥檚 guarantee of equal protection, and related provisions contained in the Utah Constitution.
Court Case
Jun 2023
LGBTQ Rights
Vasquez v. Iowa Department of Human Services
On May 31st, 2019, the 吃瓜直播 of Iowa and National 吃瓜直播 LGBTQ and HIV Project filed a lawsuit to block implementation of an Iowa law that was recently passed to restore the ban on Medicaid coverage for essential, gender-affirming surgery to transgender Iowans that the Iowa Supreme recently struck down.
Explore case
Court Case
Jun 2023
LGBTQ Rights
Vasquez v. Iowa Department of Human Services
On May 31st, 2019, the 吃瓜直播 of Iowa and National 吃瓜直播 LGBTQ and HIV Project filed a lawsuit to block implementation of an Iowa law that was recently passed to restore the ban on Medicaid coverage for essential, gender-affirming surgery to transgender Iowans that the Iowa Supreme recently struck down.
Kentucky Supreme Court
Jun 2023
Free Speech
Civil Liberties
ARKK Properties v. Cameron
In 2023, the Kentucky General Assembly passed a new law that targets only those Kentuckians who 鈥渃hallenge the constitutionality鈥� of a state statute or similar law and seek relief against a state defendant in state court.鈥疷nder S.B. 126, any party to a covered lawsuit will have a unilateral right to require transfer of the case from the circuit court where it was properly filed to a randomly chosen circuit anywhere else in the state, potentially hundreds of miles away and at great cost to Kentuckians who stand up for their rights. The 吃瓜直播 of Kentucky, the Kentucky Equal Justice Center, and the Kentucky Resources Council鈥攚ith representation from attorneys at the 吃瓜直播 of Kentucky and the 吃瓜直播鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative鈥攆iled an amicus brief in the Kentucky Supreme Court, asking the Court to hold that the law violates the Kentucky Constitution. In October, the Kentucky Supreme Court invalidated S.B. 126, ruling in favor of the 吃瓜直播.
Explore case
Kentucky Supreme Court
Jun 2023
Free Speech
Civil Liberties
ARKK Properties v. Cameron
In 2023, the Kentucky General Assembly passed a new law that targets only those Kentuckians who 鈥渃hallenge the constitutionality鈥� of a state statute or similar law and seek relief against a state defendant in state court.鈥疷nder S.B. 126, any party to a covered lawsuit will have a unilateral right to require transfer of the case from the circuit court where it was properly filed to a randomly chosen circuit anywhere else in the state, potentially hundreds of miles away and at great cost to Kentuckians who stand up for their rights. The 吃瓜直播 of Kentucky, the Kentucky Equal Justice Center, and the Kentucky Resources Council鈥攚ith representation from attorneys at the 吃瓜直播 of Kentucky and the 吃瓜直播鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative鈥攆iled an amicus brief in the Kentucky Supreme Court, asking the Court to hold that the law violates the Kentucky Constitution. In October, the Kentucky Supreme Court invalidated S.B. 126, ruling in favor of the 吃瓜直播.
Utah Supreme Court
May 2023
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood Association of Utah v. State of Utah
This case involves a challenge to Utah Senate Bill (鈥淪.B.鈥�), a law that criminalizes nearly all abortions in Utah. In June 2022, Planned Parenthood Association of Utah (鈥淧PAU鈥�), one of only two abortion providers in the state, challenged S.B. 174 in Utah state court. It is currently litigating in the Utah Supreme Court to ensure the law remains blocked while courts consider the case. PPAU is represented in the appeal by the 吃瓜直播鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the 吃瓜直播 of Utah, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and the Utah law firm Zimmerman Booher. In August 2024, in a major win for Utahns, the Court affirmed the lower court order blocking SB 174. As a result, abortion remains legal in Utah until 18 weeks of pregnancy.
Explore case
Utah Supreme Court
May 2023
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood Association of Utah v. State of Utah
This case involves a challenge to Utah Senate Bill (鈥淪.B.鈥�), a law that criminalizes nearly all abortions in Utah. In June 2022, Planned Parenthood Association of Utah (鈥淧PAU鈥�), one of only two abortion providers in the state, challenged S.B. 174 in Utah state court. It is currently litigating in the Utah Supreme Court to ensure the law remains blocked while courts consider the case. PPAU is represented in the appeal by the 吃瓜直播鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the 吃瓜直播 of Utah, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and the Utah law firm Zimmerman Booher. In August 2024, in a major win for Utahns, the Court affirmed the lower court order blocking SB 174. As a result, abortion remains legal in Utah until 18 weeks of pregnancy.
California
May 2023
Prisoners' Rights
Smart Justice
Rosas v. Luna
Rosas v. Luna is a class action lawsuit brought by the 吃瓜直播 of Southern California (吃瓜直播 SoCal), the 吃瓜直播鈥檚 National Prison Project (NPP), and the law firm of Paul Hastings LLP in 2012 against the Los Angeles Sheriff鈥檚 Department (LASD) over its routine, excessive, and unnecessary use of force against incarcerated people in the Los Angeles Jail system.
Explore case
California
May 2023
Prisoners' Rights
Smart Justice
Rosas v. Luna
Rosas v. Luna is a class action lawsuit brought by the 吃瓜直播 of Southern California (吃瓜直播 SoCal), the 吃瓜直播鈥檚 National Prison Project (NPP), and the law firm of Paul Hastings LLP in 2012 against the Los Angeles Sheriff鈥檚 Department (LASD) over its routine, excessive, and unnecessary use of force against incarcerated people in the Los Angeles Jail system.