Supreme Court Term 2024-2025
Were 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 勛圖眻畦 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 courts decision permanently blocking the rule requiring hand counting of ballots at polling places before tabulation 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 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. Taylor
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.
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
1,589 Court Cases

Court Case
Oct 2021
Free Speech
Picard v. Magliano
On December 4, 2017, Michael Picard stood on the public sidewalk in front of the Bronx County Hall of Justice with a sign reading Jury info and distributed flyers advocating for jury nullification. Shortly after he began his advocacy, an officer arrested Mr. Picard for violating New Yorks courthouse protest law, N.Y. Penal Law 215.50(7). The law makes it a crime to shout, call aloud, or hold or display signs or placards concerning a trial on a public street or sidewalk within 200 feet of a courthouse.
Explore case
Court Case
Oct 2021

Free Speech
Picard v. Magliano
On December 4, 2017, Michael Picard stood on the public sidewalk in front of the Bronx County Hall of Justice with a sign reading Jury info and distributed flyers advocating for jury nullification. Shortly after he began his advocacy, an officer arrested Mr. Picard for violating New Yorks courthouse protest law, N.Y. Penal Law 215.50(7). The law makes it a crime to shout, call aloud, or hold or display signs or placards concerning a trial on a public street or sidewalk within 200 feet of a courthouse.

Court Case
Oct 2021
Reproductive Freedom
SisterSong v. Kemp
The 勛圖眻畦, the 勛圖眻畦 of Georgia, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit, SisterSong v. Kemp, challenging a Georgia law banning abortion as early as six weeks into pregnancy, before many people know they are pregnant. This law would practically eliminate abortion care in the state and impose an unconstitutional ban on abortion. The case is currently stayed before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit pending a decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization.
Explore case
Court Case
Oct 2021

Reproductive Freedom
SisterSong v. Kemp
The 勛圖眻畦, the 勛圖眻畦 of Georgia, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit, SisterSong v. Kemp, challenging a Georgia law banning abortion as early as six weeks into pregnancy, before many people know they are pregnant. This law would practically eliminate abortion care in the state and impose an unconstitutional ban on abortion. The case is currently stayed before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit pending a decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization.

Indiana
Oct 2021
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. v. Commissioner, Indiana State Department of Health, et al.
In May 2017, Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, represented by the 勛圖眻畦 and the 勛圖眻畦 of Indiana, challenged a law creating unnecessary obstacles to abortion for people under 18 years of age. The lawsuit was filed against the Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Health.
Explore case
Indiana
Oct 2021

Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. v. Commissioner, Indiana State Department of Health, et al.
In May 2017, Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, represented by the 勛圖眻畦 and the 勛圖眻畦 of Indiana, challenged a law creating unnecessary obstacles to abortion for people under 18 years of age. The lawsuit was filed against the Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Health.

Virginia
Oct 2021
LGBTQ Rights
Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board
Gavin Grimm sued his school board for excluding him the restrooms any other boy in his school would use simply because he is transgender.
Explore case
Virginia
Oct 2021

LGBTQ Rights
Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board
Gavin Grimm sued his school board for excluding him the restrooms any other boy in his school would use simply because he is transgender.

U.S. Supreme Court
Oct 2021
Free Speech
Racial Justice
Center for Investigative Reporting v. SEPTA
In this case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the Philadelphia metropolitan transit systems ban on political and public issue advertisements violated the First Amendment because the policy could not be applied in a logical, consistent manner.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Oct 2021

Free Speech
Racial Justice
Center for Investigative Reporting v. SEPTA
In this case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the Philadelphia metropolitan transit systems ban on political and public issue advertisements violated the First Amendment because the policy could not be applied in a logical, consistent manner.