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
Sep 2014
![NSA Building](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2019/09/blog-nsavsdhs-500x280-v01.jpg)
ACLU v. NSA - Challenge to Warrantless Wiretapping
In 2006, in the first federal challenge ever argued against the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program, the ACLU defeated the Bush administration when a district court declared the program unconstitutional. But in July 2007, the 6th Circuit overturned that decision. The ACLU asked the Supreme Court of the United States to consider the ruling, but in February 2008, the Court declined to review the challenge.
View case
![NSA Building](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2019/09/blog-nsavsdhs-500x280-v01.jpg)
National Security
ACLU v. NSA - Challenge to Warrantless Wiretapping
In 2006, in the first federal challenge ever argued against the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program, the ACLU defeated the Bush administration when a district court declared the program unconstitutional. But in July 2007, the 6th Circuit overturned that decision. The ACLU asked the Supreme Court of the United States to consider the ruling, but in February 2008, the Court declined to review the challenge.
Sep 2014
View case
Southern California
Jul 2014
![Sign that reads "NO ENTRY"](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2019/09/blog-noentrysign-500x280.png)
Muhanna v. USCIS - Challenge to Government Program Denying Citizenship and Green Cards Based on Unfounded 'National Security Concerns'
The ACLU of Southern California and the ACLU, along with the Jones Day and Stacy Tolchin law firms, filed a lawsuit in July 2014 challenging a federal government program used to deny or delay thousands of law-abiding people - many of them from Muslim-majority countries - citizenship, green cards, and visas on counterterrorism grounds. The program is illegal and unconstitutional, was adopted without any congressional approval or public comment, and violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process, as the aspiring Americans whose applications are denied under the program are not told why or given a meaningful opportunity to clear their names. In response to the lawsuit, the government promptly acted upon the applications of all of the plaintiffs, approving three of them, and the case was resolved.
Status: Closed (Voluntarily Dismissed)
View case
![Sign that reads "NO ENTRY"](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2019/09/blog-noentrysign-500x280.png)
Southern California
National Security
Muhanna v. USCIS - Challenge to Government Program Denying Citizenship and Green Cards Based on Unfounded 'National Security Concerns'
The ACLU of Southern California and the ACLU, along with the Jones Day and Stacy Tolchin law firms, filed a lawsuit in July 2014 challenging a federal government program used to deny or delay thousands of law-abiding people - many of them from Muslim-majority countries - citizenship, green cards, and visas on counterterrorism grounds. The program is illegal and unconstitutional, was adopted without any congressional approval or public comment, and violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process, as the aspiring Americans whose applications are denied under the program are not told why or given a meaningful opportunity to clear their names. In response to the lawsuit, the government promptly acted upon the applications of all of the plaintiffs, approving three of them, and the case was resolved.
Jul 2014
Status: Closed (Voluntarily Dismissed)
View case
Northern California
Jul 2014
![Domestic Surveillance](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2019/09/blog-watchlist-500x280-v01.jpg)
Gill v. DOJ – 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 — 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’s motion for summary judgment, upholding the SAR program’s standard for data collection. We are appealing that ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
View case
![Domestic Surveillance](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2019/09/blog-watchlist-500x280-v01.jpg)
Northern California
National Security
Gill v. DOJ – 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 — 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’s motion for summary judgment, upholding the SAR program’s standard for data collection. We are appealing that ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Jul 2014
View case
Jun 2014
![Photographs of Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi courtesy of the Al-Aulaqi family.](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/DEM15-AbdulrahmanAlAulaqi-580x325-V01.png)
Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta - Constitutional Challenge to Killing of Three U.S. Citizens
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a lawsuit in 2012 challenging the government’s targeted killing of three U.S. citizens in drone strikes far from any armed conflict zone. Oral argument was held in July 2013 in Washington, and the court dismissed the case in April 2014.
View case
![Photographs of Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi courtesy of the Al-Aulaqi family.](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/DEM15-AbdulrahmanAlAulaqi-580x325-V01.png)
National Security
Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta - Constitutional Challenge to Killing of Three U.S. Citizens
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a lawsuit in 2012 challenging the government’s targeted killing of three U.S. citizens in drone strikes far from any armed conflict zone. Oral argument was held in July 2013 in Washington, and the court dismissed the case in April 2014.
Jun 2014
View case
Oct 2013
![FBI](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/WEB15-Images-FBI-1160x864-V02-600x447.jpg)
ACLU v. FBI - eGuardian FOIA Lawsuit
Government documents obtained by the ACLU show that nationwide programs that collect so-called "Suspicious Activity Reports" provide inadequate privacy safeguards and guidance on the definition of "suspicious activity," leading to violations of Americans' First Amendment and privacy rights, and to racial and religious profiling.
View case
![FBI](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/WEB15-Images-FBI-1160x864-V02-600x447.jpg)
National Security
+4 Issues
ACLU v. FBI - eGuardian FOIA Lawsuit
Government documents obtained by the ACLU show that nationwide programs that collect so-called "Suspicious Activity Reports" provide inadequate privacy safeguards and guidance on the definition of "suspicious activity," leading to violations of Americans' First Amendment and privacy rights, and to racial and religious profiling.
Oct 2013
View case