Racial Justice
Fund for Empowerment v. Phoenix, City of
Fund for Empowerment is a challenge to the City of Phoenix’s practice of conducting sweeps of encampments without notice, issuing citations to unsheltered people for camping and sleeping on public property when they have no place else to go, and confiscating and destroying their property without notice or process.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Learn About Racial Justice
Featured
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2023
![United States v. Rahimi](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
United States v. Rahimi
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face.
Status: Ongoing
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2023
![Muldrow v. City of St. Louis](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Muldrow v. City of St. Louis
Do employees claiming that they have been denied a transfer because of their race have to demonstrate in addition that the transfer caused a significant material disadvantage?
Status: Ongoing
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2022
![Alabama on a map of the United States of America](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2021/11/Alabama-Redistricting-SocialShare-600x314.jpg)
Allen v. Milligan
Whether Alabama’s congressional districts violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because they discriminate against Black voters. We succeeded in winning a new map for 2024 elections which, for the first time, has two congressional district that provide Black voters a fair opportunity to elect candidates of their choosing despite multiple attempts by Alabama to stop us at the Supreme Court. Despite this win, Alabama is still defending its discriminatory map, and trial will occur in February 2025 to determine the map for the rest of the decade.
Status: Ongoing
View case
Jun 2020
![Defy Ventures, Inc. v. Small Business Administration](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Defy Ventures, Inc. v. Small Business Administration
Suing the Trump administration to lift its unlawful exclusion of businesses owned by people with criminal records from being eligible for Paycheck Protection Act funds
Status: Ongoing
View case
California
Mar 2019
![Protester holding "#Black Lives Matter" sign](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/web19-blm-rally-1160x864-600x447.jpg)
MediaJustice, et al. v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al.
On March 21, 2019, the American Civil Liberties Union 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’s right to information about a 2017 FBI Intelligence Assessment that asserts, without evidence, that a group of so-called “Black Identity Extremists” 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.
Status: Ongoing
View case
Aug 2015
![S.R. v. Kenton County Sheriff's Office](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/String out 2.00_01_01_06.Still001-600x338.jpg)
S.R. v. Kenton County Sheriff's Office
A deputy sheriff shackled two elementary school children who have disabilities, causing them pain and trauma, according to a federal lawsuit filed today by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Children's Law Center, and Dinsmore & Shohl.
Status: Closed (Settled)
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
123 Racial Justice Cases
U.S. Supreme Court
May 2023
![ms](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/02/Mississippi-1-600x282.jpg)
Harness v. Watson (Amicus)
Whether Mississippi’s 1890 felony disenfranchisement law, adopted for the express purpose of disenfranchising Black voters, violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal. Protection Clause.
Status: Ongoing
View case
![ms](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/02/Mississippi-1-600x282.jpg)
U.S. Supreme Court
Racial Justice
Voting Rights
Harness v. Watson (Amicus)
Whether Mississippi’s 1890 felony disenfranchisement law, adopted for the express purpose of disenfranchising Black voters, violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal. Protection Clause.
May 2023
Status: Ongoing
View case
South Carolina
Mar 2023
![Cayeshia Johnson](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2022/05/WEB17_Cayeshia-Johnson-600x400.jpg)
Brown v. Lexington County, et al
This case is part of a nationwide fight against criminalization of poverty and, specifically, debtors' prisons. On June 1, 2017, the ACLU's Racial Justice Program, the ACLU of South Carolina, and Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC filed a federal lawsuit challenging the illegal arrest and incarceration of indigent people in Lexington County, South Carolina, for failure to pay fines and fees, without determining willfulness or providing assistance to counsel. Those targeted by this long-standing practice could avoid jail only if they paid the entire amount of outstanding court fines and fees up front and in full. Indigent people who were unable to pay were incarcerated for weeks to months without ever seeing a judge, having a court hearing, or receiving help from a lawyer. The result was one of the most draconian debtors’ prisons uncovered by the ACLU since 2010.
Status: Closed (Settled)
View case
![Cayeshia Johnson](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2022/05/WEB17_Cayeshia-Johnson-600x400.jpg)
South Carolina
Racial Justice
Smart Justice
Brown v. Lexington County, et al
This case is part of a nationwide fight against criminalization of poverty and, specifically, debtors' prisons. On June 1, 2017, the ACLU's Racial Justice Program, the ACLU of South Carolina, and Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC filed a federal lawsuit challenging the illegal arrest and incarceration of indigent people in Lexington County, South Carolina, for failure to pay fines and fees, without determining willfulness or providing assistance to counsel. Those targeted by this long-standing practice could avoid jail only if they paid the entire amount of outstanding court fines and fees up front and in full. Indigent people who were unable to pay were incarcerated for weeks to months without ever seeing a judge, having a court hearing, or receiving help from a lawyer. The result was one of the most draconian debtors’ prisons uncovered by the ACLU since 2010.
Mar 2023
Status: Closed (Settled)
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Feb 2023
![Statue of John Harvard on Harvard University's campus](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2019/09/web18-harvard-1160x768-600x397.jpg)
Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard; Students for Fair Admissions v. UNC
This lawsuit contends that the consideration of race as an affirmative action measure in admissions at Harvard and at UNC constitutes racial discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
![Statue of John Harvard on Harvard University's campus](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2019/09/web18-harvard-1160x768-600x397.jpg)
U.S. Supreme Court
Racial Justice
Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard; Students for Fair Admissions v. UNC
This lawsuit contends that the consideration of race as an affirmative action measure in admissions at Harvard and at UNC constitutes racial discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
Feb 2023
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Feb 2023
![Person with a graduation cap](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2021/03/600x600_Wordpress-3.jpg)
Biden v. Nebraska; Department of Education v. Brown
This case concerns whether the Department of Education acted within its administrative authority in issuing its student-borrower debt relief plan.
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
![Person with a graduation cap](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2021/03/600x600_Wordpress-3.jpg)
U.S. Supreme Court
Racial Justice
Biden v. Nebraska; Department of Education v. Brown
This case concerns whether the Department of Education acted within its administrative authority in issuing its student-borrower debt relief plan.
Feb 2023
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
South Carolina
Feb 2023
![Niya in front of school](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/Niya-in-front-of-school-1160x864-v0-600x447.jpg)
CYAP v. Wilson
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit challenging South Carolina’s “disturbing schools” and “disorderly conduct” laws. The laws allowed students in school to be criminally charged for normal adolescent behaviors including loitering, cursing, or undefined “obnoxious” actions on school grounds and encouraged discriminatory enforcement against Black students and students with disabilities. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court ruling that enforcing these laws against students was unconstitutional, affirming that subjecting students to criminal penalties under such vague rules interferes with their education and their future, and produces stark racial disparities. This decision should be instructive to the many school districts across the country where students continue to be charged with ‘disorderly conduct’ and similar vague crimes.
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
![Niya in front of school](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/Niya-in-front-of-school-1160x864-v0-600x447.jpg)
South Carolina
Racial Justice
+2 Issues
CYAP v. Wilson
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit challenging South Carolina’s “disturbing schools” and “disorderly conduct” laws. The laws allowed students in school to be criminally charged for normal adolescent behaviors including loitering, cursing, or undefined “obnoxious” actions on school grounds and encouraged discriminatory enforcement against Black students and students with disabilities. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court ruling that enforcing these laws against students was unconstitutional, affirming that subjecting students to criminal penalties under such vague rules interferes with their education and their future, and produces stark racial disparities. This decision should be instructive to the many school districts across the country where students continue to be charged with ‘disorderly conduct’ and similar vague crimes.
Feb 2023
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case