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 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 ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥ 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’s 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 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. Taylor
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.
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
1,589 Court Cases
South Carolina
Sep 2021
Racial Justice
White v. Shwedo
In the latest front in the nationwide fight against the criminalization of poverty, on October 31, 2019, the ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥, ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥ of South Carolina, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, Southern Poverty Law Center, and South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center filed a federal lawsuit challenging South Carolina’s policy of automatically suspending the driver’s licenses of people with unpaid traffic tickets. The South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles does not ensure that people who cannot pay will not lose their licenses in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s promise of due process and equal protection under the law. South Carolina’s wealth-based license suspensions impact more than 190,000 people, funneling those who are unable to pay, particularly poor people of color, deep into cycles of poverty, job loss, traffic violations, and entanglement with the legal system.
Explore case
South Carolina
Sep 2021
Racial Justice
White v. Shwedo
In the latest front in the nationwide fight against the criminalization of poverty, on October 31, 2019, the ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥, ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥ of South Carolina, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, Southern Poverty Law Center, and South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center filed a federal lawsuit challenging South Carolina’s policy of automatically suspending the driver’s licenses of people with unpaid traffic tickets. The South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles does not ensure that people who cannot pay will not lose their licenses in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s promise of due process and equal protection under the law. South Carolina’s wealth-based license suspensions impact more than 190,000 people, funneling those who are unable to pay, particularly poor people of color, deep into cycles of poverty, job loss, traffic violations, and entanglement with the legal system.
Court Case
Sep 2021
LGBTQ Rights
Cargian v. Breitling
Fred Cargain was hired by Breitling USA in 1990 and served as a leading sales rep for the company for over 15 years. In 2010 following the hiring of a new CEO, Cargain started to be treated differently than other men in similar positions. After multiple promotions and 23 years with the company, Cargain was fired in 2013.
Explore case
Court Case
Sep 2021
LGBTQ Rights
Cargian v. Breitling
Fred Cargain was hired by Breitling USA in 1990 and served as a leading sales rep for the company for over 15 years. In 2010 following the hiring of a new CEO, Cargain started to be treated differently than other men in similar positions. After multiple promotions and 23 years with the company, Cargain was fired in 2013.
Tennessee
Sep 2021
Criminal Law Reform
Smart Justice
Nashville Community Bail Fund v. Gentry
In Nashville, local officials keep money posted as bail to pay fines and fees. This happens even when the person whose bond was posted shows up to their required court dates. Under a local court rule and policies from the criminal clerk, pretrial release is conditioned on future payment, which leverages pretrial freedom to make money for the government.
Explore case
Tennessee
Sep 2021
Criminal Law Reform
Smart Justice
Nashville Community Bail Fund v. Gentry
In Nashville, local officials keep money posted as bail to pay fines and fees. This happens even when the person whose bond was posted shows up to their required court dates. Under a local court rule and policies from the criminal clerk, pretrial release is conditioned on future payment, which leverages pretrial freedom to make money for the government.
Colorado Supreme Court
Sep 2021
Privacy & Technology
National Security
People v. Tafoya
This case concerns whether the government may surreptitiously record the activities around a person’s home using a remotely operated, pole-mounted video camera for an extended period of time without a warrant. On September 13, 2021, the Colorado Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment protects against such surveillance and requires that police obtain a warrant.
Explore case
Colorado Supreme Court
Sep 2021
Privacy & Technology
National Security
People v. Tafoya
This case concerns whether the government may surreptitiously record the activities around a person’s home using a remotely operated, pole-mounted video camera for an extended period of time without a warrant. On September 13, 2021, the Colorado Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment protects against such surveillance and requires that police obtain a warrant.
Court Case
Aug 2021
Racial Justice
+2 Issues
J.W. v. Paley
It is critical that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals clarify that the Fourth Amendment applies to the use of force against schoolchildren. J.W. v. Paley involves Fourteenth and Fourth Amendment claims stemming from a police officer tasing a high school student with disabilities who was attempting to exit the school building to calm down following an incident with another student. The district court dismissed the Fourteenth Amendment claim based on precedent, but allowed the Fourth Amendment claim to proceed, denying qualified immunity to the officer. The Fifth Circuit, however, reversed the lower court’s decision regarding the Fourth Amendment claim, ultimately leaving schoolchildren without any constitutional protection from excessive force by law enforcement in the Fifth Circuit.
Explore case
Court Case
Aug 2021
Racial Justice
+2 Issues
J.W. v. Paley
It is critical that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals clarify that the Fourth Amendment applies to the use of force against schoolchildren. J.W. v. Paley involves Fourteenth and Fourth Amendment claims stemming from a police officer tasing a high school student with disabilities who was attempting to exit the school building to calm down following an incident with another student. The district court dismissed the Fourteenth Amendment claim based on precedent, but allowed the Fourth Amendment claim to proceed, denying qualified immunity to the officer. The Fifth Circuit, however, reversed the lower court’s decision regarding the Fourth Amendment claim, ultimately leaving schoolchildren without any constitutional protection from excessive force by law enforcement in the Fifth Circuit.