Просмотр новости
Найдите то, что Вас интересует
Спутники
РН
SpaceX
Роскосмос
NASA
This Supreme Court Term: Our Rights and Freedoms at Stake
Дата публикации: 06-10-2026 19:22:21
The ACLU could have its busiest Supreme Court term ever, with potential cases on immigration, voting rights, and religious freedom in schools.
Основное содержимое страницы с новостью.
The ACLU could have its busiest Supreme Court term ever, with potential cases on immigration, voting rights, and religious freedom in schools.
October 6, 2026
The ACLU could have its busiest Supreme Court term ever, with potential cases on immigration, voting rights, and religious freedom in schools.
The new Supreme Court term began on October 5, and the ACLU is shaping up to have another busy term, perhaps even topping our busiest term ever last year when the Supreme Court decided six ACLU cases on the merits docket.
Before the term even started, the ACLU had a flurry of action on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket, where parties who have lost in the lower court ask the Supreme Court to temporarily block the lower court’s order from going into effect while the case continues through the court system. In September alone, the ACLU was on the receiving end of four emergency stay applications in cases where we won in the lower courts. By the beginning of the term, we had prevailed in three of those cases with the fourth still pending.
As for the Supreme Court’s merits docket (cases that are decided after full briefing and oral argument), by the end of September, the ACLU had a whopping 14 cases where we or our opponents were asking the Supreme Court to take the case. Of those, the Supreme Court granted review on October 1 in an ACLU case involving immigration detention. It may yet take additional ACLU cases involving the Trump administration’s gutting of asylum protections, state-enforced religion in public schools, and jury rights in death penalty cases — and possibly more.
The Trump administration’s extreme, novel, and unlawful immigration policies have been prominent at the Supreme Court throughout his two terms in office, and more are likely to come to a head this term.
An ACLU case challenging the prolonged detention of longtime U.S. residents without any meaningful hearing was one of the Supreme Court’s earliest grants this term. That case, Genalo v. G.M., was dismissed because our client received a pardon from the governor of New York and therefore he was no longer deportable. But the government has already asked the Supreme Court to take another case raising the issue.
In the meantime, at its annual summer’s-end long conference, the Supreme Court granted review on a different immigration detention issue in an ACLU case, Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha. Rhoney is one of 11 cases (one in each numbered federal circuit court) in which the ACLU has challenged the Trump administration’s misinterpretation of a mandatory detention statute that — until Trump’s second term — has always been applied only to immigrants seeking admission at the border. Unlike every presidential administration in the 30 years since the statute was enacted by Congress, the Trump administration has applied this statute to immigrants who live in the United States, including people who have been living in the U.S. and contributing to their communities for years or decades.
Other pending immigration-related petitions before the Supreme Court include Mullin v. RAICES, where the ACLU won a challenge to a Trump administration policy that, in direct contravention of the asylum statute enacted by Congress, bars people at the border from even applying for asylum; and Bird v. Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice, where the ACLU won a challenge to an unconstitutional Iowa law that purports to set up a state-level deportation system including criminal penalties.
No child should have religious scripture forced upon them by the state, and certainly not in the classroom. This is why Texas families are asking the Supreme Court to take up Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, a challenge to a Texas state law that requires the display of a Protestant version of the Ten Commandments in every public school classroom. This law violates binding Supreme Court precedents, including Stone v. Graham, a religion case the ACLU won almost five decades ago. Our clients, parents and their children who attend Texas public schools, believe that matters of faith are deeply personal and should never been dictated by the state. We are fighting to defend that founding American principle in the Supreme Court this term.
Trial by jury is a basic protection in the U.S. Constitution, going back to the founding of our nation. The Sixth Amendment guarantees that people can only be convicted by a jury of their peers, which provides an important check against executive power.
Jury rights are especially critical in death penalty cases, where the jury expresses the moral voice and conscience of the community. In Jackson v. Florida, the ACLU is representing Michael Jackson, who was sentenced to death even though four of the 12 jurors at his trial would have sentenced him to life imprisonment. Florida is one of only two states that permits a death sentence to be imposed upon a non-unanimous jury verdict. These laws take power away from juries and put it in the hands of the state, which fundamentally violates the Sixth Amendment and the cherished American right to trial by jury.
The ACLU also filed a friend-of-the-court brief in another Sixth Amendment case out of Florida, Kian v. Florida, which raises the question whether a defendant can be convicted of a felony offense by a jury of fewer than 12 members. Our brief sets out the history of the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee to explain why a jury must include 12 members and why Florida’s law permitting convictions by a six-member jury erodes the centrality of the jury in American civic life.
The ACLU fights for American voters’ rights to cast a ballot and have it count equally, and that work always ramps up in election years. There are new threats to voting rights, which we have already defended successfully in the Supreme Court. In September, the Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration’s request to stay a lower court order we won against a new U.S. Postal Service rule implementing a presidential proclamation that would have interfered with Americans’ ability to vote by mail. That case on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket, U.S. Postal Service v. California and Trump v. League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, likely won’t be the last voting case to reach the Supreme Court this fall. We’ve already filed three amicus briefs, along with the Campaign Legal Center, in recent emergency docket litigation around Missouri’s mid-decade redistricting.
We also may see the return of an old redistricting case to the Supreme Court docket this year, Allen v. Milligan. In 2023, the Supreme Court affirmed our preliminary win in our case challenging Alabama's congressional map under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Alabama defied the ruling and passed another discriminatory map. In 2025, the district court struck that map down too, this time also finding that the state intentionally discriminated against Black voters. Alabama is now asking the Supreme Court to reverse that decision.
In Suri v. Trump, we’re defending our lower court victory on behalf of a postdoctoral scholar at Georgetown University who was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for exercising his First Amendment rights. The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to take the case.
We filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Nielsen v. Watanabe, an important case concerning accountability for prison officials who violate an incarcerated person’s Eighth Amendment rights by depriving them of medical care.
We also filed a petition, Mohammad v. United States, asking the Supreme Court to review a court of appeals decision that allowed the secretary of defense to withdraw a plea agreement between military prosecutors and three 9/11 defendants. The agreement would have finally brought closure to military commission proceedings that have dragged on for years, largely because of the government’s use of torture on the defendants.
In addition to the resounding victory against the Trump administration’s effort to block voting by mail, the ACLU scored two more victories on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket in September.
In Thornell v. Jensen, the Supreme Court denied Arizona prison officials’ efforts to block a district court order appointing a receiver to oversee health care for incarcerated people, after years of the state’s noncompliance with previous court orders.
And in Chen v. Mamdani, the Court denial of a parent’s challenge to a New York City program that removes barriers for qualified but underrepresented students in admissions to specialized public high schools means that this program will stay in place and ensure these opportunities continue. The parent was claiming they were denied because the program discriminated against their child.
These three victories on the emergency docket underscore the progress we can make at the Supreme Court. Whether we are celebrating a victory — as we did last year in our case defending birthright citizenship, Trump v. Barbara, and in our Second Amendment case, United States v. Hemani — or mourning a loss, it matters that we stand up for everyone’s rights and liberties, and that we fight to make the espoused values of our Constitution a lived reality for all — at the Supreme Court and everywhere else the fight takes us.
-
Press Release
Oct 2026
Civil Liberties
ACLU and ACLU of North Carolina Launch Over $3.5 Million Campaign to Educate North Carolina Voters Ahead of Midterm ElectionsRALEIGH, N.C. – The American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina and American Civil Liberties Union, Inc. today announced the launch of a joint campaign that will spend over $3.5 million to educate and engage North Carolina voters ahead of the Nov. 3 midterm elections. “For years, voters in North Carolina have watched as extreme politicians try over and over again to strip us of our rights – from our right to bodily autonomy to our right to fair representation,” said Liz Barber, ACLU of North Carolina director of policy and advocacy. “The ACLU is committed to ensuring that North Carolinians understand how state officials – like state supreme court justices and state legislators – can protect our rights, and where candidates for office this cycle stand on these important issues.” The organizations are spending $3.5 million on a series of statewide advertisements on social and digital media platforms and direct-to-voter mailers during the final weeks of the state Supreme Court race and key state legislative races. The advertisements will focus on educating voters about where candidates stand on key issues, including abortion rights and voting rights. This is the organizations’ largest electoral spend in North Carolina to date and will reach over 2.3 million voters. The spending is part of a multi-cycle strategy in North Carolina from the ACLU. In 2024, the ACLU of North Carolina and ACLU spent $750,000 on direct mail, digital ads, and grassroots outreach educating voters about issues at stake in the state Supreme Court and state legislative elections. The North Carolina Supreme Court is responsible for interpreting the state constitution and state laws. As the state’s highest court, it has the final say on many questions involving civil rights and civil liberties, and the North Carolina Constitution can provide broader protections than the U.S. Constitution. In 2022, for example, the court held that the North Carolina Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment can provide protections beyond those guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment. The ACLU of North Carolina, and ACLU are nonpartisan and do not support or oppose candidates for elected office. The organizations do, however, educate the voters about the issues at stake in elections and candidates’ positions and records on civil rights and civil liberties.
Affiliate: North Carolina
-
California
Oct 2026
Civil Liberties
+2 Issues
Salles, et al. v. National Institutes of Health, et al.Salles, et al. v. National Institutes of Health, et al. is a class action lawsuit challenging the censorship and termination of federally funded research by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). While ongoing litigation in APHA v. NIH successfully resulted in the reinstatement of hundreds of grants, NIH’s current policies continue to target viewpoints it opposes, threatening research because the government dislikes what it thinks the researchers believe or are likely to say, and continue to violate governing statutes and regulations. This is stymieing critical public health research, particularly related to climate change, the starkest health disparities including those faced by communities of color and LGBTQ+ populations, and other areas.
Status: Ongoing
Salles, Et Al. V. National Institutes Of Health, Et Al.. Explore Case.
-
Press Release
Oct 2026
Civil Liberties
ACLU Announces the Arnie Miller Fund for the Next GenerationNEW YORK — The American Civil Liberties Union today announced that, through a generous $1 million anonymous gift, it has established the Arnie Miller Fund for the Next Generation to invest in emerging civil rights and civil liberties leaders. The Fund will support paid ACLU internships for law school and undergraduate students named "Arnie Miller Interns” and enrich programming for ACLU's highly competitive 18-month Pauli Murray Fellowship at the ACLU. The Fund aims to honor the late Arnold J. “Arnie” Miller’s fierce commitment to mentorship, to cultivating a diverse pipeline of talented future leaders, including women, people of color, and underrepresented communities, and to uplifting the next generation of aspiring young leaders in public interest roles. “Arnie Miller spent his life lifting people up, because he understood that people and community are our best assets. We’re proud to be able to turn this generous gift into a long-term program to train and develop young people who are passionate about civil rights and civil liberties,” said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. “We continue to honor Arnie’s memory by investing in the people who will carry this work forward.” Arnie Miller grew up in the Bronx and served as an Army Lieutenant in post-war Korea before entering politics amid the antiwar movement of the 1960s and 70s. He served in the Carter administration as Director of the Presidential Personnel Office, helping bring more women and people of color into senior federal roles than any prior administration, and later founded Isaacson, Miller, an executive search firm serving mission-driven nonprofits and foundations. “Arnie believed deeply that young people with courage and determination could make a difference in our world. Throughout his life, he found enormous joy in helping others find their path and opening doors that might otherwise have remained closed. I know he would be deeply moved to see this fund carrying that spirit forward, giving the next generation the opportunity to serve, to lead, and to make our communities better. There is no more meaningful way to honor his memory,” said Deb DeLee, Arnie's longtime partner. The Arnie Miller Fund for the Next Generation will help the ACLU foster the exceptional talent of early-career professionals and welcomes additional gifts from those inspired by Arnie's legacy, ensuring the ACLU can continue to create opportunities for early-career professionals to enhance their skills, grow as leaders, and build careers dedicated to justice, equality, and freedom. Learn more about the Arnie Miller Fund for the Next Generation at https://www.aclu.org/arnie-miller-fund and the Pauli Murray Fellowship at https://www.aclu.org/pauli-murray-fellowship.
Aclu Announces The Arnie Miller Fund For The Next Generation. Explore Press Release.
-
Press Release
Sep 2026
Civil Liberties
Court Officials Must Disclose Documents Containing Secret Guidance to Judges on How to Interpret Laws, NY Appeals Court RulesNEW YORK – In a victory for judicial transparency, today the New York Appellate Division, First Department unanimously affirmed a previous New York County Supreme Court order in NYCLU v. New York State Office of Court Administration (OCA) that requires OCA to disclose all memos it sent to judges that contain guidance on how to interpret and apply the law. The ruling affirmed that the memos — which inform how courts adjudicate New Yorkers’ rights — cannot be considered privileged attorney-client communications or internal judicial deliberations. “Today’s ruling rightly affirms that the public deserves to understand how our judicial system operates, and what goes into judges’ decision-making,” said Daniel Lambright, supervising attorney with the New York Civil Liberties Union. “Every day, judges make decisions that can dramatically impact New Yorkers’ rights, especially within vulnerable communities. New York’s judicial system is strongest when it is transparent, accountable, and responsive to the public. After years of litigation, today’s First Department decision makes clear: it's time for OCA to finally do the right thing and turn over the memos.” “It’s been five years since OCA admitted that it sends memos to judges purporting to advise them on how to decide cases,” said Terry Ding, staff attorney with the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative. “The Freedom of Information Law exists to give the public access to documents like this, so that the process of government decision-making is not shrouded in secrecy. The decision today confirms that OCA must release the memos.” Intended to be a non-partisan, administrative arm of New York’s court system, OCA oversees operations, staffing, and day-to-day support for judges. But in 2021, the New York Focus revealed that OCA had a practice of issuing secret guidance to state court judges, including for cases concerning critical civil rights — like whether defendants in criminal cases should be granted bail and whether to uphold due process protections for people accused of crimes. As shown by the leaked 2021 Crawford Memorandum, these directives seem to carry weight in how state court judges rule. The NYCLU and ACLU have been fighting for these records for five years. In September 2021, the NYCLU filed a Freedom of Information request expressing concern over OCA’s secretive practices, and requested copies of all memos of this nature. The agency denied the request, so the NYCLU sued, arguing that the public is entitled to such guidance. The trial court then ordered OCA to produce its memos, but OCA appealed. In October 2025, the Court of Appeals ordered OCA to turn over any responsive documents to be reviewed. OCA identified 22 memos that it has continued to fight to keep secret. Today’s ruling affirms that OCA has no basis to continue withholding these memos. Today’s decision can be found here. All case materials can be found here.
Affiliate: New York
Схожие новости
| # | Наименование новости | Тональность | Информативность | Дата публикации |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Guns, voting and immigration on deck for Supreme Court | 0 | 6.94 | 02-10-2026 |
| 2 | A2J At The High Court: Gun Bans, Voting And Civil Remedies | 0 | 6.76 | 25-09-2026 |
| 3 | A2J At The High Court: Gun Bans, Voting And Civil Remedies | 0 | 6.76 | 25-09-2026 |
| 4 | The Supreme Court faces another term jam-packed with controversy | 0 | 8.54 | 03-10-2026 |
| 5 | The Supreme Court faces another term jam-packed with controversy | 0 | 8.54 | 03-10-2026 |
| 6 | 5 Supreme Court Cases To Watch This Fall | 0 | 10.4 | 02-10-2026 |
| 7 | A new Supreme Court term begins with cases on climate change, immigration and gun rights | 0 | 3.71 | 05-10-2026 |
| 8 | The Supreme Court Is Poised to Strangle Climate Lawsuits in the Cradle | 0 | 6.12 | 22-09-2026 |
| 9 | Your Questions Answered: How the ACLU Is Safeguarding the 2026 Midterms | 0 | 9.23 | 29-09-2026 |
| 10 | Supreme Court opens new term with shaky Trump relationship | 0 | 5.74 | 04-10-2026 |
Классификация: Мнения. Схожих патентов: 0. Схожих новостей: 10. Тональность: 0. Информативность: 7.12. Источник: www.aclu.org.