Advocacy & Litigation

The path to justice requires that we challenge federal, state, and local laws, statutes, and policies to ensure equal protection.

CURRENT LITIGATION

Voting Victory in Massachusetts

On April 9, 2026, the United States District Court of Massachusetts in USA v. Galvin,issued an order dismissing the United States' Complaint and Motion to Compel the production of the state's unredacted voter list. The NAACP New England Area Conference is an intervenor in this case. The Court held that the Department of Justice failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 which requires that any written demand for election records must include both the purpose of the request and the factual basis supporting the request.

Smoke and pollution coming out of a factory

Clean Air in Mississippi

On April 14, 2026, the NAACP, along the Mississippi State Conference of the NAACP filed suit against xAI Corp. and MZX Tech LLC in NAACP and Mississippi State Conference of the NAACP v. x.AI and MZX Tech LLC, alleging violations of the Clean Air Act related to the construction and operation of a gas-powered facility in Southaven, Mississippi.

Outdoor View of Building Columns with Sun and Shadows

Voting Rights in Louisiana

On April 17, 2026, the Louisiana State Conference of the NAACP, along with a coalition of other civil rights and voting rights organizations filed a Motion to Intervene in The State of Louisiana v. The United States Election Assistance Commission et al. The case challenges Louisiana's effort to require residents to prove their citizenship for voter registration. The State of Louisiana is asking for the Election Assistance Commission ("EAC") to modify the federal voter registration form to include this requirement.

MAKING LAWS WORK FOR US

A thoughtful look at American history reveals that the nation's laws were never meant to serve Black Americans. But we strive to make the laws work for us through litigation at the national and local levels.

Through affirmative litigation, we aim to further our mission to ensure equitable treatment and opportunities when it comes to voting rights, education, economic empowerment, criminal justice, and health, including environmental justice. We initiate lawsuits and join as plaintiffs in state and federal cases.

We have, and will continue to, file cases that fight:

Unjust federal, state local statutes regulations
Discriminatory policies, practices procedures
Unlawful misconduct by public officers, private individuals, and companies that threaten civil rights

We don't do this work alone. We may partner with other civil rights organizations, law firms, and law schools to secure the resources necessary to assess and prosecute cases.

Recent Filings

We're using the court system to fight efforts to disenfranchise Black voters, hold public officials accountable, and ensure civil rights. Read more about current cases.

The NAACP is joining with LDF in filing an amicus brief in Fairfax County Sch. Bd. and Arlington Cty. Sch. Bd v. McMahon, now pending in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. This case has implications for Black public school students in Fairfax and Arlington counties in Virginia and for beneficiaries of public funding across the Fourth Circuit.
On August 25, 2025, the U.S. Department of Education("DE") announced it was placing Alexandria City Public Schools, Arlington Public Schools, Fairfax County Public Schools, Loudoun County Public Schools, and Prince William County Public Schools (the Divisions) in Northern Virginia on high-risk status because the schools recognized "gender identity" with regard to bathrooms. DE halted all federal funding flowing to these districts, forcing the districts to pay out of pocket first, then submit requests to the federal government for reimbursement. Fairfax and Arlington challenged the determination of their status as high risk.
The District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that the Supreme Court's recent decision in National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Ass'n requires that all claims related to grant terminations go to the Court of Federal Claims pursuant to the Tucker Act. In the amicus brief, we would argue that this is a broad overread of the NIH decision, which concluded that internal guidance does not fall within the purview of the Tucker Act even when it relates to or results in grant terminations.
It is our position that the "high-risk" designation is akin to this sort of internal guidance. Sister courts' interpretation of the NIH decision supports this understanding. Under the decision being appealed, DE could also stop all funding to school districts based upon the administration's announced views of what constitutes racial discrimination, and such decisions could not be challenged in district court.
Read the full filing.
On April 17, 2026, the NAACP, joined by co-amici, filed an amicus brief in United States v. Benson before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit supporting the Defendant-Appellees, arguing that the Department of Justice exceeded its authority under Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 by demanding that Michigan release sensitive voter data.
The NAACP contends that Title III was intended to combat racial discrimination in voting, not to permit the federal government to collect voter information or build a national database, and warns that the DOJ's request — based on what it describes as unfounded voter fraud claims — threatens voter privacy, risks disenfranchising eligible voters (particularly Black voters and other voters of color), and could violate First Amendment rights by discouraging participation and enabling improper voter purges. Represented by the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the NAACP urges the court to affirm dismissal of the DOJ's claims as unlawful and inconsistent with the Civil Rights Act.
Read the full filing.

Black Female Election Workers - tallying election votes

Voting Rights Victory

The Indiana NAACP, along with the League of Women Voters of Indiana, challenged Acts 442 and 334 in court and won protection for the state's voters. The two voter purge laws aimed to allow Indiana election officials to cancel voter registrations without communication or compliance with the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) process.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that Acts 442 and 334 violate the NVRA, which prohibits states from removing voters unless voters opted for removal or by going through the established process of the NVRA.

The coalition filed a suit in YEAR to stop Act 442, which allowed election officials to obtain data from a third-party database to determine voter eligibility in Indiana without notice to the voter. Similarly, Act 334 aimed to use the Indiana Data Enhancement Association (IDEA) to identify duplicate voter registrations and allow election officials to remove a voter from Indiana's voter rolls without proper notification or consent.

Learn More

Voting Victory in Massachusetts

Clean Air in Mississippi

Voting Rights in Louisiana

Fairfax County School Board and Arlington County School Board v. McMahon

Amicus Brief: United States v. Benson

Join the Fight

Make an Impact

Make a Difference - Donate