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.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Learn About National Security
Featured
Florida
Nov 2023
![Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of Florida v. Raymond Rodrigues](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
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’s order to state universities to deactivate the student group. This order threatens the students’ 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.
Status: Ongoing
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 2022
![FBI v. Fazaga Plaintiffs](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/Fazaga_scotus-1-Blog-600x400.jpg)
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’s 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 — Yassir Fazaga, Ali Uddin Malik, and Yasser Abdelrahim — insist that the FBI cannot escape accountability for violating their religious freedom by invoking “state secrets.” The plaintiffs are represented by the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law, the ACLU of Southern California, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Council for American Islamic Relations, and the law firm of Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai.
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jul 2021
![Trump Declaring National Emergency](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2019/09/web19-trumpemergency1160x768-600x397.jpg)
Sierra Club v. Trump — Challenge to Trump’s National Emergency Declaration to Construct a Border Wall
In February 2019, the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s 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’s 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’s clients and the Biden administration determine next steps.
Status: Ongoing
View case
Indiana
Oct 2016
![Exodus Refugee Immigration, Inc. v. Mike Pence, et al](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Exodus Refugee Immigration, Inc. v. Mike Pence, et al
The American Civil Liberties Union 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’s actions violate the United States Constitution and federal law.
View case
Stay informed about our latest work in the courts.
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU's privacy statement.
All Cases
145 National Security Cases
Aug 2017
![NYPD car](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/WEB16-nypd-1160x864-600x447.jpg)
Raza v. City of New York - Legal Challenge to NYPD Muslim Surveillance Program
The ACLU, the NYCLU, and the CLEAR project at CUNY Law School filed a lawsuit in June 2013 challenging the New York City Police Department's discriminatory and unjustified surveillance of New York Muslims. We were later joined by the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP. The plaintiffs include three religious and community leaders, two mosques, and one charitable organization, all of whom were subject to the NYPD's unconstitutional religious profiling program. In January 2016, we announced a proposed settlement in the case with important reforms that include a bar against NYPD investigations on the basis of race, religion, or ethnicity, and the creation of a civilian representative position to oversee rules that safeguard against discriminatory and unjustified NYPD surveillance. That settlement was a joint one, with both the NYPD and the lawyers in Handschu v. Special Services Division, a long-standing class action that challenged the NYPD’s unlawful surveillance of political groups and activists. In October 2016, the federal district court judge presiding over the Handschu case held that he would approve the settlement if the parties agreed to three alterations, which would further strengthen protections. In March 2017, the courts in both Handschu and Raza approved the revised settlement.
Status: Closed (Settled)
View case
![NYPD car](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/WEB16-nypd-1160x864-600x447.jpg)
National Security
Raza v. City of New York - Legal Challenge to NYPD Muslim Surveillance Program
The ACLU, the NYCLU, and the CLEAR project at CUNY Law School filed a lawsuit in June 2013 challenging the New York City Police Department's discriminatory and unjustified surveillance of New York Muslims. We were later joined by the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP. The plaintiffs include three religious and community leaders, two mosques, and one charitable organization, all of whom were subject to the NYPD's unconstitutional religious profiling program. In January 2016, we announced a proposed settlement in the case with important reforms that include a bar against NYPD investigations on the basis of race, religion, or ethnicity, and the creation of a civilian representative position to oversee rules that safeguard against discriminatory and unjustified NYPD surveillance. That settlement was a joint one, with both the NYPD and the lawyers in Handschu v. Special Services Division, a long-standing class action that challenged the NYPD’s unlawful surveillance of political groups and activists. In October 2016, the federal district court judge presiding over the Handschu case held that he would approve the settlement if the parties agreed to three alterations, which would further strengthen protections. In March 2017, the courts in both Handschu and Raza approved the revised settlement.
Aug 2017
Status: Closed (Settled)
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2017
![Ziglar v. Abbasi](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Ziglar v. Abbasi
Whether a cause of action is available under the Constitution for violations of prisoners’ due process and equal protection rights when the prisoners were abused in immigration custody and when the government asserts that the abuse touches on national security decisions.
View case
![Ziglar v. Abbasi](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
U.S. Supreme Court
National Security
Ziglar v. Abbasi
Whether a cause of action is available under the Constitution for violations of prisoners’ due process and equal protection rights when the prisoners were abused in immigration custody and when the government asserts that the abuse touches on national security decisions.
Jun 2017
View case
Apr 2017
![Torture Report cover](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2019/09/blog-torturereportcover-black-500x280.png)
Senate Torture Report - FOIA
The ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit demanding that the CIA, and the Departments of Defense, Justice, and State release a 6,900-page report of a comprehensive investigation into the CIA’s post-9/11 program of detention, torture, and other abuse of detainees. The investigative report was produced by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and describes horrific human rights abuses by the CIA. It also chronicles the agency’s evasions and lies to Congress, the White House, the media, and the public. In May 2015, a federal district court dismissed the case, finding that the full torture report is a congressional record and therefore not subject to FOIA, which applies only to executive branch records. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment in May 2016. In November 2016, we filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court, asking it to hold that the full report is subject to FOIA — so it may be released to the public. In April 2017, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. The outcome was a major setback for government transparency and accountability.
Status: Closed (Dismissed)
View case
![Torture Report cover](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2019/09/blog-torturereportcover-black-500x280.png)
National Security
Senate Torture Report - FOIA
The ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit demanding that the CIA, and the Departments of Defense, Justice, and State release a 6,900-page report of a comprehensive investigation into the CIA’s post-9/11 program of detention, torture, and other abuse of detainees. The investigative report was produced by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and describes horrific human rights abuses by the CIA. It also chronicles the agency’s evasions and lies to Congress, the White House, the media, and the public. In May 2015, a federal district court dismissed the case, finding that the full torture report is a congressional record and therefore not subject to FOIA, which applies only to executive branch records. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment in May 2016. In November 2016, we filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court, asking it to hold that the full report is subject to FOIA — so it may be released to the public. In April 2017, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. The outcome was a major setback for government transparency and accountability.
Apr 2017
Status: Closed (Dismissed)
View case
Mar 2017
![Trump American Flag](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/web17-TrumpCasePage-1160x864-600x447.jpg)
Trump Conflicts of Interest - FOIA
In January 2017, the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking documents on conflicts of interest and violations of the Constitution and federal law posed by President Trump’s and his family’s business interests.
Status: Ongoing
View case
![Trump American Flag](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/web17-TrumpCasePage-1160x864-600x447.jpg)
National Security
Trump Conflicts of Interest - FOIA
In January 2017, the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking documents on conflicts of interest and violations of the Constitution and federal law posed by President Trump’s and his family’s business interests.
Mar 2017
Status: Ongoing
View case
Feb 2017
![Bad Trip: Debunking the TSA's 'Behavior Detection' Program](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/WEB17-badtrip-cover-1160x864-600x447.jpg)
ACLU v. TSA
The ACLU and the NYCLU filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in March 2015 demanding documents relating to the TSA's Screening Passengers by Observation Techniques (SPOT) program. The TSA turned over hundreds of documents in response, and in February 2017 the ACLU released a report analyzing the records.
View case
![Bad Trip: Debunking the TSA's 'Behavior Detection' Program](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/WEB17-badtrip-cover-1160x864-600x447.jpg)
National Security
ACLU v. TSA
The ACLU and the NYCLU filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in March 2015 demanding documents relating to the TSA's Screening Passengers by Observation Techniques (SPOT) program. The TSA turned over hundreds of documents in response, and in February 2017 the ACLU released a report analyzing the records.
Feb 2017
View case