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
Apr 2022
![Spying](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/stop spying-600x400.jpg)
U.S. v. Muhtorov
The ACLU and the Office of the Federal Public Defender of Colorado jointly represented Jamshid Muhtorov in challenging the warrantless surveillance of his communications under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and the lawfulness of other spying methods the government used against him. Mr. Muhtorov was the first person ever to receive notice from the government that Section 702 had been used to spy on their communications. In a split decision in December 2021, the Tenth Circuit court of appeals ruled against Mr. Muhtorov.
Status: Closed
View case
![Spying](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/stop spying-600x400.jpg)
National Security
U.S. v. Muhtorov
The ACLU and the Office of the Federal Public Defender of Colorado jointly represented Jamshid Muhtorov in challenging the warrantless surveillance of his communications under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and the lawfulness of other spying methods the government used against him. Mr. Muhtorov was the first person ever to receive notice from the government that Section 702 had been used to spy on their communications. In a split decision in December 2021, the Tenth Circuit court of appeals ruled against Mr. Muhtorov.
Apr 2022
Status: Closed
View case
Mar 2022
![Uniformed Officer](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/Screen Shot 2022-03-23 at 5.39.58 PM-600x311.png)
Kariye v. Mayorkas
In March 2022, the ACLU, ACLU of Minnesota, and ACLU of Southern California filed a lawsuit on behalf of three Muslim Americans who have been subjected to intrusive questioning from border officers about their religious beliefs, practices, and associations in violation of their constitutional rights.
Status: Ongoing
View case
![Uniformed Officer](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/Screen Shot 2022-03-23 at 5.39.58 PM-600x311.png)
National Security
Kariye v. Mayorkas
In March 2022, the ACLU, ACLU of Minnesota, and ACLU of Southern California filed a lawsuit on behalf of three Muslim Americans who have been subjected to intrusive questioning from border officers about their religious beliefs, practices, and associations in violation of their constitutional rights.
Mar 2022
Status: Ongoing
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Dec 2021
![Privacy and technology](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/WEB15-SiteImages-PrivAndTech-600x240.jpg)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club
Whether the “deliberative process” privilege protects draft documents that the USF&WS and the National Marine Fisheries Service created as part of a formal consultation process under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
![Privacy and technology](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/WEB15-SiteImages-PrivAndTech-600x240.jpg)
U.S. Supreme Court
National Security
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club
Whether the “deliberative process” privilege protects draft documents that the USF&WS and the National Marine Fisheries Service created as part of a formal consultation process under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
Dec 2021
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Dec 2021
![Alasaad Family](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/WEB17-CasePage-BorderDeviceSearch-1160x864-v01-600x447.jpg)
Merchant v. Mayorkas
The American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the ACLU of Massachusetts have filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security on behalf of 11 travelers whose smartphones and laptops were searched without warrants at the U.S. border.
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
![Alasaad Family](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/WEB17-CasePage-BorderDeviceSearch-1160x864-v01-600x447.jpg)
U.S. Supreme Court
National Security
Privacy & Technology
Merchant v. Mayorkas
The American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the ACLU of Massachusetts have filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security on behalf of 11 travelers whose smartphones and laptops were searched without warrants at the U.S. border.
Dec 2021
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Nov 2021
![NSA Building](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2019/09/blog-nsavsdhs-500x280-v01.jpg)
ACLU v. United States
The ACLU has filed three motions in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) asking it to release secret opinions authorizing the surveillance of Americans. The public has a right to see the legal decisions addressing novel surveillance programs that affect our privacy and free speech rights — but many of the FISC’s opinions remained closely guarded secrets.
After the FISC and its appeals court rejected the ACLU’s public access arguments in a series of rulings, the ACLU asked the Supreme Court to review those rulings and to recognize that the public has a First Amendment right of access to the FISC’s opinions.
View case
![NSA Building](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2019/09/blog-nsavsdhs-500x280-v01.jpg)
U.S. Supreme Court
National Security
Free Speech
ACLU v. United States
The ACLU has filed three motions in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) asking it to release secret opinions authorizing the surveillance of Americans. The public has a right to see the legal decisions addressing novel surveillance programs that affect our privacy and free speech rights — but many of the FISC’s opinions remained closely guarded secrets.
After the FISC and its appeals court rejected the ACLU’s public access arguments in a series of rulings, the ACLU asked the Supreme Court to review those rulings and to recognize that the public has a First Amendment right of access to the FISC’s opinions.
Nov 2021
View case