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
U.S. Supreme Court
Feb 2023
![Social media apps on a smart phone.](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2021/04/WEB21-Social-Media-Apps-Standard-Header-1110x740-1-600x400.jpg)
Twitter, Inc., v. Taamneh
The Supreme Court will decide whether a social media or other platform can be liable for “aiding and abetting” a terrorist attack merely because it failed to adequately block content valorizing terrorism, even where the platform has policies barring terrorist content.
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
![Social media apps on a smart phone.](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2021/04/WEB21-Social-Media-Apps-Standard-Header-1110x740-1-600x400.jpg)
U.S. Supreme Court
National Security
+2 Issues
Twitter, Inc., v. Taamneh
The Supreme Court will decide whether a social media or other platform can be liable for “aiding and abetting” a terrorist attack merely because it failed to adequately block content valorizing terrorism, even where the platform has policies barring terrorist content.
Feb 2023
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Feb 2023
![Upstream surveillance](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/WEB16-upstream-3panels-1160x864-600x446.jpg)
Wikimedia v. NSA - Challenge to Upstream Surveillance
The ACLU is challenging the constitutionality of the NSA’s mass interception and searching of Americans’ international Internet communications. At issue is the NSA’s “Upstream” surveillance, through which the U.S. government systematically monitors private emails, messages, and other data flowing into and out of the country on the Internet’s central arteries. The ACLU’s lawsuit was brought on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation and eight legal, human rights, and media organizations, which together engage in trillions of sensitive communications and have been harmed by Upstream surveillance.
Status: Closed
View case
![Upstream surveillance](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/WEB16-upstream-3panels-1160x864-600x446.jpg)
U.S. Supreme Court
National Security
Wikimedia v. NSA - Challenge to Upstream Surveillance
The ACLU is challenging the constitutionality of the NSA’s mass interception and searching of Americans’ international Internet communications. At issue is the NSA’s “Upstream” surveillance, through which the U.S. government systematically monitors private emails, messages, and other data flowing into and out of the country on the Internet’s central arteries. The ACLU’s lawsuit was brought on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation and eight legal, human rights, and media organizations, which together engage in trillions of sensitive communications and have been harmed by Upstream surveillance.
Feb 2023
Status: Closed
View case
Dec 2022
![A portrait of Sherry Chen](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/Sherry_Case-600x400.jpg)
Sherry Chen v. United States
In October 2021, the ACLU joined the legal team representing Sherry Chen, an award-winning Chinese American scientist who was wrongfully investigated, prosecuted, and terminated from her job as a hydrologist with the National Weather Service. The government accused Ms. Chen of unlawfully downloading sensitive government data and falsely portrayed her as a spy for China. On the eve of trial, the Justice Department dropped all charges against her. In 2019, Ms. Chen filed a federal lawsuit against the United States, seeking accountability for the government’s misconduct. In December 2022, Ms. Chen reached a historic settlement of her federal lawsuit and a separate case before the Merit Systems Protection Board, an agency that hears claims from federal employees. The settlement, one of the largest paid to an individual plaintiff in Commerce Department history, includes compensation valued at approximately $1.8 million.
Status: Closed (Settled)
View case
![A portrait of Sherry Chen](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/Sherry_Case-600x400.jpg)
National Security
Sherry Chen v. United States
In October 2021, the ACLU joined the legal team representing Sherry Chen, an award-winning Chinese American scientist who was wrongfully investigated, prosecuted, and terminated from her job as a hydrologist with the National Weather Service. The government accused Ms. Chen of unlawfully downloading sensitive government data and falsely portrayed her as a spy for China. On the eve of trial, the Justice Department dropped all charges against her. In 2019, Ms. Chen filed a federal lawsuit against the United States, seeking accountability for the government’s misconduct. In December 2022, Ms. Chen reached a historic settlement of her federal lawsuit and a separate case before the Merit Systems Protection Board, an agency that hears claims from federal employees. The settlement, one of the largest paid to an individual plaintiff in Commerce Department history, includes compensation valued at approximately $1.8 million.
Dec 2022
Status: Closed (Settled)
View case
Jun 2022
![Homeland](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/Homeland_square-600x600.jpg)
ACLU v. Department of Homeland Security (CP3 FOIA)
ACLU v. Department of Homeland Security- Freedom of Information Act Case Regarding New Domestic Violent Extremism Initiatives.
Status: Ongoing
View case
![Homeland](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/Homeland_square-600x600.jpg)
National Security
ACLU v. Department of Homeland Security (CP3 FOIA)
ACLU v. Department of Homeland Security- Freedom of Information Act Case Regarding New Domestic Violent Extremism Initiatives.
Jun 2022
Status: Ongoing
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 2022
![United States v. Husayn (aka Abu Zubaydah)](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
United States v. Husayn (aka Abu Zubaydah)
Whether the district court may order two CIA contractors who devised and implemented the post-9/11 torture program to testify (as they have done twice before) about nonprivileged information; or if, instead, the Government may prohibit disclosure of even nonprivileged information by invoking the state secrets doctrine.
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
![United States v. Husayn (aka Abu Zubaydah)](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
U.S. Supreme Court
National Security
United States v. Husayn (aka Abu Zubaydah)
Whether the district court may order two CIA contractors who devised and implemented the post-9/11 torture program to testify (as they have done twice before) about nonprivileged information; or if, instead, the Government may prohibit disclosure of even nonprivileged information by invoking the state secrets doctrine.
Apr 2022
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case