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
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
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
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
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
U.S. Supreme Court
Oct 2011
Al-Aulaqi v. Obama - Constitutional Challenge to Proposed Killing of U.S. Citizen
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a lawsuit in August 2010 challenging the government's asserted authority to carry out "targeted killings" of U.S. citizens located far from any armed conflict zone.
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
National Security
Al-Aulaqi v. Obama - Constitutional Challenge to Proposed Killing of U.S. Citizen
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a lawsuit in August 2010 challenging the government's asserted authority to carry out "targeted killings" of U.S. citizens located far from any armed conflict zone.
Oct 2011
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 2011
Jalatzai v. Gates and Wahid v. Gates
In February 2010, the ACLU filed two habeas corpus petitions challenging the illegal detention of four men who have been held — some for nearly two years — at the notorious Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. The men — who have never engaged in hostilities against the United States and are not members of groups that have engaged in hostilities against the United States — have never been told why they are being detained, been permitted to speak with a lawyer, or given a meaningful opportunity to challenge their detention before a court or a fair and impartial administrative board.
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
National Security
Smart Justice
Jalatzai v. Gates and Wahid v. Gates
In February 2010, the ACLU filed two habeas corpus petitions challenging the illegal detention of four men who have been held — some for nearly two years — at the notorious Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. The men — who have never engaged in hostilities against the United States and are not members of groups that have engaged in hostilities against the United States — have never been told why they are being detained, been permitted to speak with a lawyer, or given a meaningful opportunity to challenge their detention before a court or a fair and impartial administrative board.
Apr 2011
View case
Dec 2010
ACLU comments to European Court of Human Rights in Babar Ahmad and Others v. The United Kingdom
Conditions of confinement in a US "supermax" prison
View case
National Security
+2 Issues
ACLU comments to European Court of Human Rights in Babar Ahmad and Others v. The United Kingdom
Conditions of confinement in a US "supermax" prison
Dec 2010
View case
Dec 2010
ACLU and CCR v. Geithner
The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is responsible for implementing the government’s activities with regard to freezing foreign assets belonging to certain designated individuals. While these measures are an important part of a variety of U.S. sanctions regimes, they create large potential for abuse. In particular, OFAC claims the power to prevent any designated person – including U.S. citizens – from retaining a lawyer without first obtaining a license from the government. The ACLU believes that OFAC does not have the authority to prevent individuals from retaining and being representing by a lawyer, especially when that lawyer is not being compensated (and therefore is not being paid out of “frozen” assets). ACLU v. Geithner is a constitutional challenge to these rules.
View case
National Security
ACLU and CCR v. Geithner
The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is responsible for implementing the government’s activities with regard to freezing foreign assets belonging to certain designated individuals. While these measures are an important part of a variety of U.S. sanctions regimes, they create large potential for abuse. In particular, OFAC claims the power to prevent any designated person – including U.S. citizens – from retaining a lawyer without first obtaining a license from the government. The ACLU believes that OFAC does not have the authority to prevent individuals from retaining and being representing by a lawyer, especially when that lawyer is not being compensated (and therefore is not being paid out of “frozen” assets). ACLU v. Geithner is a constitutional challenge to these rules.
Dec 2010
View case
Georgia
Dec 2010
Valentine v. City of Douglasville
In December 2008, Lisa Valentine, a devout Muslim, accompanied her nephew to Douglasville Municipal Court for his traffic hearing. While going through security, she was informed by an officer that she would have to remove her religious head covering before she entered the courtroom, due the court's "no headgear" policy. When she protested the policy, believing it to be a violation of her right to freely practice her faith, she was restrained, arrested, forced to remove her headscarf, and jailed.
View case
Georgia
National Security
+2 Issues
Valentine v. City of Douglasville
In December 2008, Lisa Valentine, a devout Muslim, accompanied her nephew to Douglasville Municipal Court for his traffic hearing. While going through security, she was informed by an officer that she would have to remove her religious head covering before she entered the courtroom, due the court's "no headgear" policy. When she protested the policy, believing it to be a violation of her right to freely practice her faith, she was restrained, arrested, forced to remove her headscarf, and jailed.
Dec 2010
View case