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
Apr 2013
National Security
Bagram FOIA
In April 2009, the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for records relating to the detention and treatment of prisoners held at the Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan. The ACLU is asking the Obama administration to make public records pertaining to the number of people currently detained at Bagram, their names, citizenship, place of capture and length of detention, as well as records pertaining to the process afforded those prisoners to challenge their detention and designation as "enemy combatants."
Explore case
Court Case
Apr 2013
National Security
Bagram FOIA
In April 2009, the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for records relating to the detention and treatment of prisoners held at the Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan. The ACLU is asking the Obama administration to make public records pertaining to the number of people currently detained at Bagram, their names, citizenship, place of capture and length of detention, as well as records pertaining to the process afforded those prisoners to challenge their detention and designation as "enemy combatants."
Court Case
Mar 2013
National Security
Challenge to Censorship of Torture Testimony at Guantánamo Military Commission Trial
The ACLU asked the Guantánamo Bay military commission to enforce the American public’s First Amendment right to open trials in the most important terrorism case of our time. Our motion challenged the government’s attempts to censor and hide from the public any statements by the 9/11 defendants about their torture and detention in CIA and military custody. The government's request was granted, and our appeal of that decision was denied.
Explore case
Court Case
Mar 2013
National Security
Challenge to Censorship of Torture Testimony at Guantánamo Military Commission Trial
The ACLU asked the Guantánamo Bay military commission to enforce the American public’s First Amendment right to open trials in the most important terrorism case of our time. Our motion challenged the government’s attempts to censor and hide from the public any statements by the 9/11 defendants about their torture and detention in CIA and military custody. The government's request was granted, and our appeal of that decision was denied.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2013
National Security
Free Speech
McBurney v. Young
Whether a state may limit access to its public records by allowing only its own citizens to use the state’s freedom of information law.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2013
National Security
Free Speech
McBurney v. Young
Whether a state may limit access to its public records by allowing only its own citizens to use the state’s freedom of information law.
Court Case
Dec 2012
National Security
Padilla v. Rumsfeld
Jose Padilla was seized from a U.S. jail in 2002, declared an "enemy combatant" and secretly transported to a military brig in South Carolina. He was imprisoned for nearly four years, the first two of which he was prevented from communicating with his lawyers or family, and subjected to extreme abuse
Explore case
Court Case
Dec 2012
National Security
Padilla v. Rumsfeld
Jose Padilla was seized from a U.S. jail in 2002, declared an "enemy combatant" and secretly transported to a military brig in South Carolina. He was imprisoned for nearly four years, the first two of which he was prevented from communicating with his lawyers or family, and subjected to extreme abuse
U.S. Supreme Court
Dec 2012
National Security
Smart Justice
Rumsfeld v. Padilla
Reviewing the President's authority to designate an American citizen an 'enemy combatant' and detain him indefinitely in an American military brig without charges, trial, or private access to counsel.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Dec 2012
National Security
Smart Justice
Rumsfeld v. Padilla
Reviewing the President's authority to designate an American citizen an 'enemy combatant' and detain him indefinitely in an American military brig without charges, trial, or private access to counsel.