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
Minnesota Supreme Court
Apr 2023
Voting Rights
Schroeder v. Minnesota Secretary of State
This case challenged the denial of the right to vote of people convicted of felonies but subject to parole, probation, or other supervised released in Minnesota.
Explore case
Minnesota Supreme Court
Apr 2023
Voting Rights
Schroeder v. Minnesota Secretary of State
This case challenged the denial of the right to vote of people convicted of felonies but subject to parole, probation, or other supervised released in Minnesota.
Court Case
Apr 2023
Privacy & Technology
National Security
吃瓜直播 v. FBI - FOIA Case for FBI Records Related to Nondisclosure Agreements for Cell Site Simulators
In 2021, the 吃瓜直播 submitted a FOIA request to the FBI to determine whether the FBI has continued to require state and local law enforcement agencies to enter into nondisclosure agreements before purchasing or using cell site simulators. After appealing and suing, the 吃瓜直播 finally obtained responsive records confirming that the FBI has continued to impose nondisclosure agreements on law enforcement agencies seeking to use the FBI鈥檚 cell site simulators.
Explore case
Court Case
Apr 2023
Privacy & Technology
National Security
吃瓜直播 v. FBI - FOIA Case for FBI Records Related to Nondisclosure Agreements for Cell Site Simulators
In 2021, the 吃瓜直播 submitted a FOIA request to the FBI to determine whether the FBI has continued to require state and local law enforcement agencies to enter into nondisclosure agreements before purchasing or using cell site simulators. After appealing and suing, the 吃瓜直播 finally obtained responsive records confirming that the FBI has continued to impose nondisclosure agreements on law enforcement agencies seeking to use the FBI鈥檚 cell site simulators.
Puerto Rico
Apr 2023
Free Speech
Rodr铆guez-Cotto v. Pierluisi-Urrutia
This case is about whether the government can impose sweeping restrictions on 鈥渇alse alarms鈥� about public emergencies, without specifying what constitutes a false alarm.
Explore case
Puerto Rico
Apr 2023
Free Speech
Rodr铆guez-Cotto v. Pierluisi-Urrutia
This case is about whether the government can impose sweeping restrictions on 鈥渇alse alarms鈥� about public emergencies, without specifying what constitutes a false alarm.
Pennsylvania
Mar 2023
Religious Liberty
The Satanic Temple v. Saucon Valley School District
The 吃瓜直播 (吃瓜直播), the 吃瓜直播 of Pennsylvania, and Dechert LLP filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Saucon Valley School District (SVSD) in March 2023 for violating the First Amendment by prohibiting the After School Satan Club (ASSC) from meeting in district facilities. Although school officials initially approved the club鈥檚 application 鈥� explaining in an email to parents that the district 鈥渃annot discriminate among groups wishing to use the SVSD facilities鈥� 鈥� they quickly bowed to the ensuing public outcry. The case seeks to allow the ASSC to meet in district facilities.
Explore case
Pennsylvania
Mar 2023
Religious Liberty
The Satanic Temple v. Saucon Valley School District
The 吃瓜直播 (吃瓜直播), the 吃瓜直播 of Pennsylvania, and Dechert LLP filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Saucon Valley School District (SVSD) in March 2023 for violating the First Amendment by prohibiting the After School Satan Club (ASSC) from meeting in district facilities. Although school officials initially approved the club鈥檚 application 鈥� explaining in an email to parents that the district 鈥渃annot discriminate among groups wishing to use the SVSD facilities鈥� 鈥� they quickly bowed to the ensuing public outcry. The case seeks to allow the ASSC to meet in district facilities.
South Carolina
Mar 2023
Smart Justice
Racial Justice
Brown v. Lexington County, et al
This case is part of a nationwide fight against criminalization of poverty and, specifically, debtors' prisons. On June 1, 2017, the 吃瓜直播's Racial Justice Program, the 吃瓜直播 of South Carolina, and Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC filed a federal lawsuit challenging the illegal arrest and incarceration of indigent people in Lexington County, South Carolina, for failure to pay fines and fees, without determining willfulness or providing assistance to counsel. Those targeted by this long-standing practice could avoid jail only if they paid the entire amount of outstanding court fines and fees up front and in full. Indigent people who were unable to pay were incarcerated for weeks to months without ever seeing a judge, having a court hearing, or receiving help from a lawyer. The result was one of the most draconian debtors鈥� prisons uncovered by the 吃瓜直播 since 2010.
Explore case
South Carolina
Mar 2023
Smart Justice
Racial Justice
Brown v. Lexington County, et al
This case is part of a nationwide fight against criminalization of poverty and, specifically, debtors' prisons. On June 1, 2017, the 吃瓜直播's Racial Justice Program, the 吃瓜直播 of South Carolina, and Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC filed a federal lawsuit challenging the illegal arrest and incarceration of indigent people in Lexington County, South Carolina, for failure to pay fines and fees, without determining willfulness or providing assistance to counsel. Those targeted by this long-standing practice could avoid jail only if they paid the entire amount of outstanding court fines and fees up front and in full. Indigent people who were unable to pay were incarcerated for weeks to months without ever seeing a judge, having a court hearing, or receiving help from a lawyer. The result was one of the most draconian debtors鈥� prisons uncovered by the 吃瓜直播 since 2010.