Human Rights
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 Human Rights
Featured
Washington, D.C.
Jun 2019
Human Rights
Weir v. U.S.
The 老熟女午夜福利 filed a federal lawsuit in June 2019 against the United States and the head of the U.S. Coast Guard on behalf of four Jamaican fishermen, who were forcibly removed from their fishing boat and detained for over a month at sea on four U.S. Coast Guard ships in patently inhumane conditions.
All Cases
27 Human Rights Cases
Massachusetts
Jan 2026
Human Rights
National Security
Burnley v. U.S.: Demanding Accountability on Caribbean Boat Strikes
On October 14, 2025, the United States military carried out an illegal missile strike that killed Chad Joseph and Rishi Samaroo, two Trinidadian men who were traveling by boat from Venezuela to their homes in Las Cuevas, Trinidad and Tobago. The 老熟女午夜福利, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the 老熟女午夜福利 of Massachusetts, and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School filed suit on behalf of Lenore Burnley, Mr. Joseph鈥檚 mother, and Sallycar Korasingh, Mr. Samaroo鈥檚 sister, seeking redress and accountability for these extrajudicial killings pursuant to the Death on the High Seas Act and the Alien Tort Statute.
Explore case
Massachusetts
Jan 2026
Human Rights
National Security
Burnley v. U.S.: Demanding Accountability on Caribbean Boat Strikes
On October 14, 2025, the United States military carried out an illegal missile strike that killed Chad Joseph and Rishi Samaroo, two Trinidadian men who were traveling by boat from Venezuela to their homes in Las Cuevas, Trinidad and Tobago. The 老熟女午夜福利, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the 老熟女午夜福利 of Massachusetts, and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School filed suit on behalf of Lenore Burnley, Mr. Joseph鈥檚 mother, and Sallycar Korasingh, Mr. Samaroo鈥檚 sister, seeking redress and accountability for these extrajudicial killings pursuant to the Death on the High Seas Act and the Alien Tort Statute.
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2024
Human Rights
Immigrants' Rights
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas
Whether a U.S. citizen gets a day in court to challenge the federal government鈥檚 revocation of her spouse鈥檚 immigrant visa.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2024
Human Rights
Immigrants' Rights
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas
Whether a U.S. citizen gets a day in court to challenge the federal government鈥檚 revocation of her spouse鈥檚 immigrant visa.
Montana Supreme Court
May 2024
Human Rights
+2 老熟女午夜福利
Held v. Montana
This case pending before the Montana Supreme Court asks, among other things, whether the claims of sixteen youth plaintiffs challenging Montana energy policy present a political question under the Montana Constitution. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Montana, filed an amicus brief arguing that the claims do not present a political question and, moreover, that state courts should not wholesale adopt the federal political questions doctrine.
Explore case
Montana Supreme Court
May 2024
Human Rights
+2 老熟女午夜福利
Held v. Montana
This case pending before the Montana Supreme Court asks, among other things, whether the claims of sixteen youth plaintiffs challenging Montana energy policy present a political question under the Montana Constitution. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Montana, filed an amicus brief arguing that the claims do not present a political question and, moreover, that state courts should not wholesale adopt the federal political questions doctrine.
Washington, D.C.
Feb 2024
Human Rights
National Security
ACLU v. DOD 鈥� FOIA Case Seeking Biden Administration鈥檚 Presidential Policy Memorandum
In October 2022, the Biden administration confirmed the existence of the White House鈥檚 latest set of policy rules governing the United States鈥� use of lethal force outside of recognized battlefields abroad. These new rules are known as the 鈥淧residential Policy Memorandum (PPM).鈥� The administration made the partially-redacted PPM public in response to the latest in a series of ACLU lawsuits to force transparency about the U.S. government鈥檚 secretive, unlawful, and controversial use of lethal force abroad, including through the use of drones.
Explore case
Washington, D.C.
Feb 2024
Human Rights
National Security
ACLU v. DOD 鈥� FOIA Case Seeking Biden Administration鈥檚 Presidential Policy Memorandum
In October 2022, the Biden administration confirmed the existence of the White House鈥檚 latest set of policy rules governing the United States鈥� use of lethal force outside of recognized battlefields abroad. These new rules are known as the 鈥淧residential Policy Memorandum (PPM).鈥� The administration made the partially-redacted PPM public in response to the latest in a series of ACLU lawsuits to force transparency about the U.S. government鈥檚 secretive, unlawful, and controversial use of lethal force abroad, including through the use of drones.
Utah Supreme Court
Nov 2023
Human Rights
Civil Liberties
Barrani v. Salt Lake City
Hundreds if not thousands of Salt Lake City, Utah, residents have nowhere safe to stay and must live and sleep in public. This case鈥攂rought by a small group of residents and businesses鈥攊nvolves the question whether this citywide homelessness crisis constitutes a nuisance under Utah state law. It also presents the question whether Salt Lake City can be ordered to clear encampments, forcibly relocate people who are unhoused, and enforce vague and overbroad laws criminalizing homelessness where doing so will likely, if not certainly, violate unhoused people鈥檚 state and federal constitutional rights. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative and Trone Center for Justice and Equality, along with the ACLU of Utah and the Salt Lake Legal Defenders Association, represent amici curiae in the trial court who oppose the plaintiffs鈥� nuisance claims and their request for relief.
Explore case
Utah Supreme Court
Nov 2023
Human Rights
Civil Liberties
Barrani v. Salt Lake City
Hundreds if not thousands of Salt Lake City, Utah, residents have nowhere safe to stay and must live and sleep in public. This case鈥攂rought by a small group of residents and businesses鈥攊nvolves the question whether this citywide homelessness crisis constitutes a nuisance under Utah state law. It also presents the question whether Salt Lake City can be ordered to clear encampments, forcibly relocate people who are unhoused, and enforce vague and overbroad laws criminalizing homelessness where doing so will likely, if not certainly, violate unhoused people鈥檚 state and federal constitutional rights. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative and Trone Center for Justice and Equality, along with the ACLU of Utah and the Salt Lake Legal Defenders Association, represent amici curiae in the trial court who oppose the plaintiffs鈥� nuisance claims and their request for relief.