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
U.S. Supreme Court
Dec 2003
National Security
Missouri v. Seibert
Reviewing conviction obtained through statements originally made "outside” Miranda warning. DECIDED
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Dec 2003
National Security
Missouri v. Seibert
Reviewing conviction obtained through statements originally made "outside” Miranda warning. DECIDED
U.S. Supreme Court
Dec 2003
National Security
United States v. Patane
Reviewing conviction based on evidence obtained after a confession in violation of Miranda. DECIDED
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Dec 2003
National Security
United States v. Patane
Reviewing conviction based on evidence obtained after a confession in violation of Miranda. DECIDED
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2003
National Security
Maryland v. Pringle
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2003
National Security
Maryland v. Pringle
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2003
National Security
Privacy & Technology
Arizona v. Gant
Reviewing conviction based on illegal police search of a car. DECIDED
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2003
National Security
Privacy & Technology
Arizona v. Gant
Reviewing conviction based on illegal police search of a car. DECIDED
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2003
National Security
Privacy & Technology
Illinois v. Lidster
Reviewing police use of roadblocks to find witnesses to a crime. DECIDED
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2003
National Security
Privacy & Technology
Illinois v. Lidster
Reviewing police use of roadblocks to find witnesses to a crime. DECIDED