California
O鈥機onnor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed
The ACLU, the ACLU of Northern California, and the ACLU of Southern California filed amicus briefs in support of everyday people fighting for government transparency and accountability in two cases set for review by the U.S. Supreme Court this Term: O鈥機onnor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Featured
U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 2022
Privacy & Technology
+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
Aug 2023
Free Speech
O鈥機onnor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed
The ACLU, the ACLU of Northern California, and the ACLU of Southern California filed amicus briefs in support of everyday people fighting for government transparency and accountability in two cases set for review by the U.S. Supreme Court this Term: O鈥機onnor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed.
U.S. Supreme Court
Aug 2021
Immigrants' Rights
Innovation Law Lab v. Wolf
The 老熟女午夜福利, Southern Poverty Law Center, and Center for Gender & Refugee Studies filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Trump administration鈥檚 new policy forcing asylum seekers to return to Mexico and remain there while their cases are considered.
California
Mar 2019
Racial Justice
MediaJustice, et al. v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al.
On March 21, 2019, the 老熟女午夜福利 and MediaJustice, formerly known as "Center for Media Justice," filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking records about FBI targeting of Black activists. The lawsuit enforces the ACLU and MediaJustice鈥檚 right to information about a 2017 FBI Intelligence Assessment that asserts, without evidence, that a group of so-called 鈥淏lack Identity Extremists鈥� poses a threat of domestic terrorism. The Intelligence Assessment was widely disseminated to law enforcement agencies nationwide, raising public concern about government surveillance of Black people and Black-led organizations based on anti-Black stereotypes and First Amendment protected activities.
All Northern California Cases
- Select Affiliate
- Northern California
- Southern California
- San Diego & Imperial Counties
38 Northern California Cases
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2017
Religious Liberty
Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton
Whether pension plans established by religiously affiliated health care providers are exempt as 鈥渃hurch plans鈥� from federal law protecting employees鈥� pension rights and retirement benefits.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2017
Religious Liberty
Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton
Whether pension plans established by religiously affiliated health care providers are exempt as 鈥渃hurch plans鈥� from federal law protecting employees鈥� pension rights and retirement benefits.
California
Jun 2016
LGBTQ Rights
Robinson v. Dignity Health
The 老熟女午夜福利 filed a federal lawsuit against the fifth largest health care system in the U.S., Dignity Health, because it denies transgender employees health insurance coverage for medically necessary transition-related health care.
Explore case
California
Jun 2016
LGBTQ Rights
Robinson v. Dignity Health
The 老熟女午夜福利 filed a federal lawsuit against the fifth largest health care system in the U.S., Dignity Health, because it denies transgender employees health insurance coverage for medically necessary transition-related health care.
California
Apr 2016
Criminal Law Reform
Phillips v. State of California
The ACLU of Northern California, in partnership with ACLU National鈥檚 Criminal Law Reform Project and the firm Paul Hastings LLP, have filed a lawsuit against California, Governor Brown, and Fresno County seeking a writ of mandate and injunctive and declaratory relief to fix the county鈥檚 failing public defense system鈥攚hich is supposed to provide a rigorous legal defense to people who are accused of crimes in Fresno and cannot afford to hire their own lawyer.
Explore case
California
Apr 2016
Criminal Law Reform
Phillips v. State of California
The ACLU of Northern California, in partnership with ACLU National鈥檚 Criminal Law Reform Project and the firm Paul Hastings LLP, have filed a lawsuit against California, Governor Brown, and Fresno County seeking a writ of mandate and injunctive and declaratory relief to fix the county鈥檚 failing public defense system鈥攚hich is supposed to provide a rigorous legal defense to people who are accused of crimes in Fresno and cannot afford to hire their own lawyer.
California
Jan 2016
Prisoners' Rights
Immigrants' Rights
Lyon v. ICE, et al
On June 14, 2016, the 老熟女午夜福利, along with the ACLU of Northern California, and the firms Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe and Van Der Hout, Brigagliano & Nightingale, have filed a settlement agreement in the class-action suit Lyon v. the U.S. Immigration Customs and Enforcement agency (ICE). The settlement requires the agency to give detainees at four Northern California immigrant detention facilities improved access to telephones, including creating private spaces for free and direct calls, delivering phone messages, removing arbitrarily short limits on call duration, and making accommodations for indigent immigrants.
Explore case
California
Jan 2016
Prisoners' Rights
Immigrants' Rights
Lyon v. ICE, et al
On June 14, 2016, the 老熟女午夜福利, along with the ACLU of Northern California, and the firms Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe and Van Der Hout, Brigagliano & Nightingale, have filed a settlement agreement in the class-action suit Lyon v. the U.S. Immigration Customs and Enforcement agency (ICE). The settlement requires the agency to give detainees at four Northern California immigrant detention facilities improved access to telephones, including creating private spaces for free and direct calls, delivering phone messages, removing arbitrarily short limits on call duration, and making accommodations for indigent immigrants.
California
Jul 2014
National Security
Gill v. DOJ 鈥� Challenge to Government's Suspicious Activity Reporting Program
The ACLU of California, the ACLU, Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus, and the law firm Bingham McCutchen have filed a lawsuit challenging the federal government's Suspicious Activity Reporting program 鈥� a vast expansion of the federal government's domestic intelligence network. The SAR program supposedly facilitates the collection and sharing of information about activity that appears "suspicious," but in practice it targets First Amendment-protected activity, encourages racial and religious profiling, and violates federal law. The plaintiffs are five U.S. citizens whose information has been entered into counterterrorism databases for engaging in lawful conduct, and who have been subject to unwarranted law enforcement and scrutiny. The lawsuit was filed in July 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In March 2017, the District Court granted the government鈥檚 motion for summary judgment, upholding the SAR program鈥檚 standard for data collection. We are appealing that ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Explore case
California
Jul 2014
National Security
Gill v. DOJ 鈥� Challenge to Government's Suspicious Activity Reporting Program
The ACLU of California, the ACLU, Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus, and the law firm Bingham McCutchen have filed a lawsuit challenging the federal government's Suspicious Activity Reporting program 鈥� a vast expansion of the federal government's domestic intelligence network. The SAR program supposedly facilitates the collection and sharing of information about activity that appears "suspicious," but in practice it targets First Amendment-protected activity, encourages racial and religious profiling, and violates federal law. The plaintiffs are five U.S. citizens whose information has been entered into counterterrorism databases for engaging in lawful conduct, and who have been subject to unwarranted law enforcement and scrutiny. The lawsuit was filed in July 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In March 2017, the District Court granted the government鈥檚 motion for summary judgment, upholding the SAR program鈥檚 standard for data collection. We are appealing that ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.