National Security
FOIA Case Seeking the Trump Administration’s Legal Justification for Deadly Boat Strikes
The Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”) authored a legal opinion that reportedly claims to justify the Trump administration’s illegal lethal strikes on civilians in boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean. Media reports indicate that, in addition to claiming that the strikes are lawful acts in an alleged “armed conflict” with unspecified drug cartels, the OLC opinion also purports to immunize personnel who authorized or took part in the strikes from future criminal prosecution. Because the public deserves to know how our government is justifying these illegal strikes, and why they think the people who carried them out should not be held accountable, the ACLU is seeking immediate release of the OLC legal opinion and related documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Learn About National Security
Featured
U.S. Supreme Court
Dec 2023
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.
Florida
Nov 2023
National Security
+2 Issues
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.
U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 2022
National Security
+2 Issues
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.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jul 2021
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
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.
Indiana
Oct 2016
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
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.
All Cases
155 National Security Cases
Court Case
Oct 2016
National Security
Slahi v. Obama - Habeas Challenge to Guantánamo Detention
Mohamedou Ould Slahi (sometimes spelled "Salahi") is a Mauritanian national who was illegally detained by the U.S. for more than 14 years. On October 17, 2016, Mr. Slahi was released and transferred back to Mauritania, where he was reunited with his family. Mr. Slahi was arrested in Mauritania in November 2001 on suspicion of ties to al-Qaeda. He was then illegally rendered by the U.S. government to Jordan, where he was detained, interrogated and abused for eight months. He was subsequently rendered to U.S. custody in Bagram, Afghanistan and finally to Guantánamo, where he was held from August 2002 until his release.
Explore case
Court Case
Oct 2016
National Security
Slahi v. Obama - Habeas Challenge to Guantánamo Detention
Mohamedou Ould Slahi (sometimes spelled "Salahi") is a Mauritanian national who was illegally detained by the U.S. for more than 14 years. On October 17, 2016, Mr. Slahi was released and transferred back to Mauritania, where he was reunited with his family. Mr. Slahi was arrested in Mauritania in November 2001 on suspicion of ties to al-Qaeda. He was then illegally rendered by the U.S. government to Jordan, where he was detained, interrogated and abused for eight months. He was subsequently rendered to U.S. custody in Bagram, Afghanistan and finally to Guantánamo, where he was held from August 2002 until his release.
Court Case
Oct 2016
National Security
ACLU v. CIA - FOIA Case for Records Referenced in or Implicated by the Declassification of the Senate Torture Report (2015 Torture FOIA)
In November 2015, the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit demanding the Departments of Defense, Justice, and State, and the CIA release 69 records or categories of records either referenced in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s report on the CIA’s torture program or whose classification status was implicated by the report’s release. While the full 6,900-page SSCI report remains classified, the summary of the report’s findings, which was declassified and released in December 2014, describes horrific human rights abuses committed by the CIA through its post-9/11 program of rendition, detention, and torture.
Explore case
Court Case
Oct 2016
National Security
ACLU v. CIA - FOIA Case for Records Referenced in or Implicated by the Declassification of the Senate Torture Report (2015 Torture FOIA)
In November 2015, the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit demanding the Departments of Defense, Justice, and State, and the CIA release 69 records or categories of records either referenced in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s report on the CIA’s torture program or whose classification status was implicated by the report’s release. While the full 6,900-page SSCI report remains classified, the summary of the report’s findings, which was declassified and released in December 2014, describes horrific human rights abuses committed by the CIA through its post-9/11 program of rendition, detention, and torture.
Court Case
May 2016
National Security
Meshal v. Higgenbotham
The ACLU filed a lawsuit in November 2009 on behalf of Amir Meshal against four FBI agents for their direct, personal role in his unlawful detention, torture, and rendition from Kenya to Somalia and Ethiopia over a period of more than four months.
Explore case
Court Case
May 2016
National Security
Meshal v. Higgenbotham
The ACLU filed a lawsuit in November 2009 on behalf of Amir Meshal against four FBI agents for their direct, personal role in his unlawful detention, torture, and rendition from Kenya to Somalia and Ethiopia over a period of more than four months.
Court Case
Feb 2016
National Security
ACLU v. Department of Homeland Security: FOIA Lawsuit Seeking Records on “Countering Violent Extremism ” Programs
The ACLU has filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking information about federal government programs that purport to prevent “violent extremism” but that actually cast suspicion on law-abiding Americans and unfairly target American Muslims. The lawsuit was filed in February 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Explore case
Court Case
Feb 2016
National Security
ACLU v. Department of Homeland Security: FOIA Lawsuit Seeking Records on “Countering Violent Extremism ” Programs
The ACLU has filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking information about federal government programs that purport to prevent “violent extremism” but that actually cast suspicion on law-abiding Americans and unfairly target American Muslims. The lawsuit was filed in February 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Court Case
Oct 2015
National Security
ACLU v. Clapper - Challenge to NSA Mass Call-Tracking Program
On June 11, 2013, the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of the National Security Agency’s mass collection of Americans’ phone records. The complaint argues that the dragnet violates the right to privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment as well as the freedoms of speech and association protected by the First Amendment. The complaint also charges that the program exceeds the authority that Congress provided in Section 215 of the Patriot Act. In May 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the call-records program violates Section 215 of the Patriot Act. Weeks later, on June 1, 2015, Section 215 briefly expired for the first time since the passage of the Patriot Act in 2001. The next day, Congress passed the USA Freedom Act, which amended Section 215 to prohibit the bulk collection of Americans’ call records.
Explore case
Court Case
Oct 2015
National Security
ACLU v. Clapper - Challenge to NSA Mass Call-Tracking Program
On June 11, 2013, the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of the National Security Agency’s mass collection of Americans’ phone records. The complaint argues that the dragnet violates the right to privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment as well as the freedoms of speech and association protected by the First Amendment. The complaint also charges that the program exceeds the authority that Congress provided in Section 215 of the Patriot Act. In May 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the call-records program violates Section 215 of the Patriot Act. Weeks later, on June 1, 2015, Section 215 briefly expired for the first time since the passage of the Patriot Act in 2001. The next day, Congress passed the USA Freedom Act, which amended Section 215 to prohibit the bulk collection of Americans’ call records.