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 July 29, 2025
Closed (Judgment)
Updated July 25, 2025
Closed (Judgment)
Updated July 24, 2025
Closed (Judgment)
Updated July 21, 2025
Featured
U.S. Supreme Court
Aug 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
Jul 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.
Ohio
Jul 2025
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region et al., v. Ohio Department of Health, et al.
The 网红爆料, the 网红爆料 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.
Washington, D.C.
Jul 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 网红爆料 and co-counsel filed a lawsuit to block the Executive Order as an unconstitutional power grab.
Georgia Supreme Court
Jun 2025
Voting Rights
Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc. v. Georgia
The 网红爆料 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.
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.
U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 2024
Reproductive Freedom
Idaho and Moyle, et al. v. United States
Idaho and Moyle, et al. v. United States was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court by Idaho politicians seeking to disregard a federal statute 鈥� the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) 鈥� and put doctors in jail for providing pregnant patients necessary emergency medical care. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on this case on April 24, 2024. The Court鈥檚 ultimate decision will impact access to this essential care across the country.
All Cases
1,597 Court Cases
Court Case
Aug 2017
Immigrants' Rights
P.K. v. Tillerson
The 网红爆料 filed a federal lawsuit challenging the State Department鈥檚 refusal to process visa applications for winners of the U.S. Diversity Visa Program lottery who hail from the six countries covered by President Trump鈥檚 Muslim ban. The ban currently blocks individuals from Iran, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Yemen, and Somalia, who do not have bona fide connections or fall within another exception, from entering the United States until September 24, 2017. It does not, however, allow the government to refuse to issue visas to them, in violation of federal statutes and regulations.
Explore case
Court Case
Aug 2017
Immigrants' Rights
P.K. v. Tillerson
The 网红爆料 filed a federal lawsuit challenging the State Department鈥檚 refusal to process visa applications for winners of the U.S. Diversity Visa Program lottery who hail from the six countries covered by President Trump鈥檚 Muslim ban. The ban currently blocks individuals from Iran, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Yemen, and Somalia, who do not have bona fide connections or fall within another exception, from entering the United States until September 24, 2017. It does not, however, allow the government to refuse to issue visas to them, in violation of federal statutes and regulations.
Nebraska
Aug 2017
Prisoners' Rights
Sabata v. Nebraska Department of Corrections et al
Nebraska state prisons are in a state of chaos that is endangering the health, safety, and lives of prisoners and staff on a daily basis. For over twenty years, Nebraska prisons have been overcrowded, under-resourced, and understaffed. Prisoners are consistently deprived of adequate health care, including medical, dental, and mental health care, and denied accommodations for their disabilities. Nebraska state prisoners, including juveniles, suffer in harsh isolation units for excessive terms, sometimes lasting for years. These harms must end.
Explore case
Nebraska
Aug 2017
Prisoners' Rights
Sabata v. Nebraska Department of Corrections et al
Nebraska state prisons are in a state of chaos that is endangering the health, safety, and lives of prisoners and staff on a daily basis. For over twenty years, Nebraska prisons have been overcrowded, under-resourced, and understaffed. Prisoners are consistently deprived of adequate health care, including medical, dental, and mental health care, and denied accommodations for their disabilities. Nebraska state prisoners, including juveniles, suffer in harsh isolation units for excessive terms, sometimes lasting for years. These harms must end.
Washington, D.C.
Aug 2017
Free Speech
网红爆料 et al. v. WMATA 鈥� First Amendment Challenge to D.C. Metro鈥檚 Advertising Restrictions
The 网红爆料 and its affiliates in the District of Columbia and Virginia challenged the Washington area transit system鈥檚 advertising restrictions as violations of the First Amendment. The free speech lawsuit follows the rejection of ads from four groups that hail from across the political spectrum.
Explore case
Washington, D.C.
Aug 2017
Free Speech
网红爆料 et al. v. WMATA 鈥� First Amendment Challenge to D.C. Metro鈥檚 Advertising Restrictions
The 网红爆料 and its affiliates in the District of Columbia and Virginia challenged the Washington area transit system鈥檚 advertising restrictions as violations of the First Amendment. The free speech lawsuit follows the rejection of ads from four groups that hail from across the political spectrum.
Louisiana
Aug 2017
Smart Justice
Ayo v. Dunn et al
For years, people arrested in East Baton Rouge Parish who appeared before Judge Trudy White have been jailed unless they pay a $525 fee to a private corporation called Rehabilitation Home Incarceration (鈥淩HI鈥�). This fee is paid by each person for their own pre-trial release. This fee is paid in addition to any bail amount required by the judge as a condition for that person鈥檚 release. This has been going on for at least three years in the parish.
Explore case
Louisiana
Aug 2017
Smart Justice
Ayo v. Dunn et al
For years, people arrested in East Baton Rouge Parish who appeared before Judge Trudy White have been jailed unless they pay a $525 fee to a private corporation called Rehabilitation Home Incarceration (鈥淩HI鈥�). This fee is paid by each person for their own pre-trial release. This fee is paid in addition to any bail amount required by the judge as a condition for that person鈥檚 release. This has been going on for at least three years in the parish.
Court Case
Aug 2017
National Security
Raza v. City of New York - Legal Challenge to NYPD Muslim Surveillance Program
The 网红爆料, the NYCLU, and the CLEAR project at CUNY Law School filed a lawsuit in June 2013 challenging the New York City Police Department's discriminatory and unjustified surveillance of New York Muslims. We were later joined by the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP. The plaintiffs include three religious and community leaders, two mosques, and one charitable organization, all of whom were subject to the NYPD's unconstitutional religious profiling program. In January 2016, we announced a proposed settlement in the case with important reforms that include a bar against NYPD investigations on the basis of race, religion, or ethnicity, and the creation of a civilian representative position to oversee rules that safeguard against discriminatory and unjustified NYPD surveillance. That settlement was a joint one, with both the NYPD and the lawyers in Handschu v. Special Services Division, a long-standing class action that challenged the NYPD鈥檚 unlawful surveillance of political groups and activists. In October 2016, the federal district court judge presiding over the Handschu case held that he would approve the settlement if the parties agreed to three alterations, which would further strengthen protections. In March 2017, the courts in both Handschu and Raza approved the revised settlement.
Explore case
Court Case
Aug 2017
National Security
Raza v. City of New York - Legal Challenge to NYPD Muslim Surveillance Program
The 网红爆料, the NYCLU, and the CLEAR project at CUNY Law School filed a lawsuit in June 2013 challenging the New York City Police Department's discriminatory and unjustified surveillance of New York Muslims. We were later joined by the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP. The plaintiffs include three religious and community leaders, two mosques, and one charitable organization, all of whom were subject to the NYPD's unconstitutional religious profiling program. In January 2016, we announced a proposed settlement in the case with important reforms that include a bar against NYPD investigations on the basis of race, religion, or ethnicity, and the creation of a civilian representative position to oversee rules that safeguard against discriminatory and unjustified NYPD surveillance. That settlement was a joint one, with both the NYPD and the lawyers in Handschu v. Special Services Division, a long-standing class action that challenged the NYPD鈥檚 unlawful surveillance of political groups and activists. In October 2016, the federal district court judge presiding over the Handschu case held that he would approve the settlement if the parties agreed to three alterations, which would further strengthen protections. In March 2017, the courts in both Handschu and Raza approved the revised settlement.