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 May 8, 2025
Ongoing
Updated April 9, 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 Alabama’s 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—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 ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥ 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 ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥ and ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥ 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.
Georgia
Oct 2024
Voting Rights
Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc. v. Georgia
The ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥ 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 ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥, the ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥ 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
1,571 Court Cases
New York
Apr 2025
Disability Rights
NOW-NYC v. DoD and VA
Explore case
Texas
Apr 2025
LGBTQ Rights
PFLAG v. Abbott
The ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥, Lambda Legal, the ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥ of Texas, and Baker Botts filed a lawsuit in Texas State Court on behalf of PFLAG National and three Texas families. This is the second of two lawsuits challenging unlawful attempts to ban essential health care for transgender youth by Texas state leaders.
Explore case
Texas
Apr 2025
LGBTQ Rights
PFLAG v. Abbott
The ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥, Lambda Legal, the ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥ of Texas, and Baker Botts filed a lawsuit in Texas State Court on behalf of PFLAG National and three Texas families. This is the second of two lawsuits challenging unlawful attempts to ban essential health care for transgender youth by Texas state leaders.
Maryland
Apr 2025
LGBTQ Rights
PFLAG v. Trump
Transgender young adults and families with transgender youth, together with PFLAG National and GLMA, filed a federal legal challenge against a January 2025 executive order from the Trump administration directing federal agencies to withhold funds from medical providers and institutions that provide gender-affirming medical treatments for people under nineteen.
Explore case
Maryland
Apr 2025
LGBTQ Rights
PFLAG v. Trump
Transgender young adults and families with transgender youth, together with PFLAG National and GLMA, filed a federal legal challenge against a January 2025 executive order from the Trump administration directing federal agencies to withhold funds from medical providers and institutions that provide gender-affirming medical treatments for people under nineteen.
Kansas
Apr 2025
Capital Punishment
Challenging Death Qualification and the Death Penalty in Kansas
Every person accused of a crime is entitled to a jury of their peers that represents a fair cross section of their community. But that is never the reality for Black and brown people facing the death penalty. A process called death qualification excludes people from capital juries if they do not believe in the death penalty. Death qualification rigs juries to be whiter and more likely to convict. It discriminates against Black prospective jurors, women, and people of individual faiths that oppose capital punishment.
Our fight against death qualification is just one piece of our ongoing challenge to Kansas’ use of the death penalty. The ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥, together with the law firms Hogan Lovells and Ali & Lockwood, Democracy Forward, and the Kansas State Board of Indigents’ Defense Services’ Death Penalty Defense Unit has brought constitutional challenges on behalf of four people charged in separate cases with capital murder. In each case, the case has resolved without a death sentence. In Wyandotte County, the judge issued an order finding extensive and irredeemable defects in the application of the death penalty.
Explore case
Kansas
Apr 2025
Capital Punishment
Challenging Death Qualification and the Death Penalty in Kansas
Every person accused of a crime is entitled to a jury of their peers that represents a fair cross section of their community. But that is never the reality for Black and brown people facing the death penalty. A process called death qualification excludes people from capital juries if they do not believe in the death penalty. Death qualification rigs juries to be whiter and more likely to convict. It discriminates against Black prospective jurors, women, and people of individual faiths that oppose capital punishment.
Our fight against death qualification is just one piece of our ongoing challenge to Kansas’ use of the death penalty. The ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥, together with the law firms Hogan Lovells and Ali & Lockwood, Democracy Forward, and the Kansas State Board of Indigents’ Defense Services’ Death Penalty Defense Unit has brought constitutional challenges on behalf of four people charged in separate cases with capital murder. In each case, the case has resolved without a death sentence. In Wyandotte County, the judge issued an order finding extensive and irredeemable defects in the application of the death penalty.
Virginia
Apr 2025
Free Speech
LGBTQ Rights
E.K. v. Department of Defense Education Activity
Whether the Department of Defense Education Activity can remove educational material related to race and gender from its libraries and classrooms in K-12 schools.
Explore case
Virginia
Apr 2025
Free Speech
LGBTQ Rights
E.K. v. Department of Defense Education Activity
Whether the Department of Defense Education Activity can remove educational material related to race and gender from its libraries and classrooms in K-12 schools.