National Security
FOIA Case Seeking the Trump Administration鈥檚 Legal Justification for Deadly Boat Strikes
The Department of Justice鈥檚 Office of Legal Counsel (鈥淥LC鈥�) authored a legal opinion that reportedly claims to justify the Trump administration鈥檚 illegal lethal strikes on civilians in boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean. Media reports indicate that, in addition to claiming that the strikes are lawful acts in an alleged 鈥渁rmed conflict鈥� with unspecified drug cartels, the OLC opinion also purports to immunize personnel who authorized or took part in the strikes from future criminal prosecution. Because the public deserves to know how our government is justifying these illegal strikes, and why they think the people who carried them out should not be held accountable, the ACLU is seeking immediate release of the OLC legal opinion and related documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Learn About National Security
Featured
U.S. Supreme Court
Dec 2023
National Security
FBI v. Fikre
Whether the government can overcome the voluntary cessation exception to mootness by removing an individual from the No Fly List when the government has not repudiated its decision to place him on the List and remains free to return him to the List for the same reasons and using the same procedures he alleges were unlawful.
Florida
Nov 2023
National Security
+2 老熟女午夜福利
Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of Florida v. Raymond Rodrigues
The University of Florida chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine filed a lawsuit on November 16, 2023, challenging the Chancellor of the State University System of Florida鈥檚 order to state universities to deactivate the student group. This order threatens the students鈥� constitutionally-protected right to free speech and association in violation of the First Amendment. The ACLU and its partners are seeking a preliminary injunction that would bar the Chancellor and the University of Florida from deactivating the UF SJP.
U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 2022
National Security
+2 老熟女午夜福利
FBI v. Fazaga
In a case scheduled to be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on November 8, 2021, three Muslim Americans are challenging the FBI鈥檚 secret spying on them and their communities based on their religion, in violation of the Constitution and federal law. In what will likely be a landmark case, the plaintiffs 鈥� Yassir Fazaga, Ali Uddin Malik, and Yasser Abdelrahim 鈥� insist that the FBI cannot escape accountability for violating their religious freedom by invoking 鈥渟tate secrets.鈥� The plaintiffs are represented by the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law, the ACLU of Southern California, the 老熟女午夜福利, the Council for American Islamic Relations, and the law firm of Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jul 2021
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Sierra Club v. Trump 鈥� Challenge to Trump鈥檚 National Emergency Declaration to Construct a Border Wall
In February 2019, the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump鈥檚 emergency powers declaration to secure funds to build a wall along the southern border. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition. The lawsuit argues that the president is usurping Congress鈥檚 appropriations power and threatening the clearly defined separation of powers inscribed in the Constitution. On January 20, 2021, President Biden halted further border wall construction. Litigation in this and subsequent related challenges has been paused or deadlines extended while the ACLU鈥檚 clients and the Biden administration determine next steps.
Indiana
Oct 2016
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Exodus Refugee Immigration, Inc. v. Mike Pence, et al
The 老熟女午夜福利 and the ACLU of Indiana, on behalf of Exodus Refugee Immigration, filed suit against Governor Mike Pence and the secretary of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration to stop attempts to suspend resettlement of Syrian refugees, claiming the governor鈥檚 actions violate the United States Constitution and federal law.
All Cases
155 National Security Cases
Court Case
Sep 2023
National Security
ACLU v. ODNI 鈥� FOIA Lawsuit Seeking Records About Government Surveillance Under the USA Freedom Act
Explore case
Court Case
Sep 2023
National Security
ACLU v. ODNI 鈥� FOIA Lawsuit Seeking Records About Government Surveillance Under the USA Freedom Act
Court Case
Sep 2023
National Security
CLEAR, ACLU v. CBP鈥擣OIA Lawsuit Seeking Records on CBP鈥檚 Tactical Terrorism Response Teams
The ACLU and its partners have sued CBP to compel it to turn over records on highly secretive units deployed at U.S. ports of entry, which target, detain, search, and interrogate innocent travelers. These units, which may target travelers on the basis of officer 鈥渋nstincts,鈥� raise the risk that CBP is engaging in unlawful profiling or interfering with the First Amendment-protected activity of travelers.
Explore case
Court Case
Sep 2023
National Security
CLEAR, ACLU v. CBP鈥擣OIA Lawsuit Seeking Records on CBP鈥檚 Tactical Terrorism Response Teams
The ACLU and its partners have sued CBP to compel it to turn over records on highly secretive units deployed at U.S. ports of entry, which target, detain, search, and interrogate innocent travelers. These units, which may target travelers on the basis of officer 鈥渋nstincts,鈥� raise the risk that CBP is engaging in unlawful profiling or interfering with the First Amendment-protected activity of travelers.
Michigan Supreme Court
Sep 2023
National Security
Privacy & Technology
Long Lake Township v. Maxon
On September 8, 2023, the ACLU, the ACLU of Michigan, and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy filed an amicus brief in the Michigan Supreme Court arguing that the local government deploying an unmanned drone to take aerial photographs of the appellant鈥檚 property violated the Fourth Amendment.
Explore case
Michigan Supreme Court
Sep 2023
National Security
Privacy & Technology
Long Lake Township v. Maxon
On September 8, 2023, the ACLU, the ACLU of Michigan, and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy filed an amicus brief in the Michigan Supreme Court arguing that the local government deploying an unmanned drone to take aerial photographs of the appellant鈥檚 property violated the Fourth Amendment.
Court Case
May 2023
National Security
Xi v. United States 鈥� Challenge to Warrantless Surveillance
The ACLU represents Xiaoxing Xi, a Chinese-American physics professor at Temple University, who is suing the government over its dismissed prosecution of him for supposedly sharing sensitive technology with scientists in China. The lawsuit, filed in 2017, challenges the FBI鈥檚 baseless arrest of Xi and it surveillance methods as well as its discriminatory targeting of Chinese-American scientists.
Explore case
Court Case
May 2023
National Security
Xi v. United States 鈥� Challenge to Warrantless Surveillance
The ACLU represents Xiaoxing Xi, a Chinese-American physics professor at Temple University, who is suing the government over its dismissed prosecution of him for supposedly sharing sensitive technology with scientists in China. The lawsuit, filed in 2017, challenges the FBI鈥檚 baseless arrest of Xi and it surveillance methods as well as its discriminatory targeting of Chinese-American scientists.
Court Case
May 2023
National Security
Privacy & Technology
The Warrant Clause in the Digital Age
The information generated by today鈥檚 digital devices and online services reveals private matters far beyond what one could learn from physical analogs. In a series of legal filings and a white paper, available below, the ACLU has argued that to keep apace with technological developments and adequately protect our privacy, the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement must be interpreted robustly. Seizures and searches of digital data must be cabined to probable cause, limited to specific categories of information relevant to the investigation, and closely overseen by a neutral magistrate.
Explore case
Court Case
May 2023
National Security
Privacy & Technology
The Warrant Clause in the Digital Age
The information generated by today鈥檚 digital devices and online services reveals private matters far beyond what one could learn from physical analogs. In a series of legal filings and a white paper, available below, the ACLU has argued that to keep apace with technological developments and adequately protect our privacy, the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement must be interpreted robustly. Seizures and searches of digital data must be cabined to probable cause, limited to specific categories of information relevant to the investigation, and closely overseen by a neutral magistrate.