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
154 National Security Cases
Court Case
May 2021
National Security
Free Speech
Sadat v. Trump - Challenge to Trump's International Criminal Court’s Sanctions Regime
On January 15, 2021, the ACLU and Covington & Burling LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of three law faculty and an ACLU human rights attorney challenging former President Trump’s executive order authorizing sanctions against people who assist the International Criminal Court in investigating or prosecuting war crimes and other gross human rights violations.
Explore case
Court Case
May 2021
National Security
Free Speech
Sadat v. Trump - Challenge to Trump's International Criminal Court’s Sanctions Regime
On January 15, 2021, the ACLU and Covington & Burling LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of three law faculty and an ACLU human rights attorney challenging former President Trump’s executive order authorizing sanctions against people who assist the International Criminal Court in investigating or prosecuting war crimes and other gross human rights violations.
Court Case
May 2021
National Security
Free Speech
Chebli v. Kable: Lawsuit Challenging Placement on No Fly List
In April 2021, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of the District of Columbia, and the ACLU of Michigan filed a lawsuit on behalf of Ahmad Chebli, whom the U.S. government wrongly placed on the No Fly List after he refused to become an FBI informant. Ten days after the ACLU filed the lawsuit, the government finally removed Mr. Chebli from the No Fly List. Because he is no longer on the No Fly List, Mr. Chebli withdrew the lawsuit, saying “I’m relieved to be off the No Fly List, but still reeling from the government’s abusive use of the list against me and its violations of my constitutional rights. I was placed on the list after I refused to become an FBI informant despite frightening and intimidating threats against me and my family. For over two years, I sought a fair process to clear my name, and the government failed to provide me with one. As a Muslim in this country, it can be easy to feel like a second-class citizen and be afraid to stand up for your rights because of the way our own government treats us. But now I feel vindicated and want my story to encourage others to stand up for their rights, because when we do, good things can happen.”
Explore case
Court Case
May 2021
National Security
Free Speech
Chebli v. Kable: Lawsuit Challenging Placement on No Fly List
In April 2021, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of the District of Columbia, and the ACLU of Michigan filed a lawsuit on behalf of Ahmad Chebli, whom the U.S. government wrongly placed on the No Fly List after he refused to become an FBI informant. Ten days after the ACLU filed the lawsuit, the government finally removed Mr. Chebli from the No Fly List. Because he is no longer on the No Fly List, Mr. Chebli withdrew the lawsuit, saying “I’m relieved to be off the No Fly List, but still reeling from the government’s abusive use of the list against me and its violations of my constitutional rights. I was placed on the list after I refused to become an FBI informant despite frightening and intimidating threats against me and my family. For over two years, I sought a fair process to clear my name, and the government failed to provide me with one. As a Muslim in this country, it can be easy to feel like a second-class citizen and be afraid to stand up for your rights because of the way our own government treats us. But now I feel vindicated and want my story to encourage others to stand up for their rights, because when we do, good things can happen.”
California
Apr 2021
National Security
Kashem, et al. v. Barr, et al. - ACLU Challenge to Government No Fly List
Explore case
California
Apr 2021
National Security
Kashem, et al. v. Barr, et al. - ACLU Challenge to Government No Fly List
Court Case
Nov 2020
National Security
ACLU v. DHS: FOIA Lawsuit Seeking Information on Implementation of Face Surveillance at Airports
In March 2020, the ACLU and the New York Civil Liberties Union filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking information from the Department of Homeland Security, CBP, TSA, and ICE about the implementation of face surveillance at airports and their plans to subject travelers to this technology in the future.
Explore case
Court Case
Nov 2020
National Security
ACLU v. DHS: FOIA Lawsuit Seeking Information on Implementation of Face Surveillance at Airports
In March 2020, the ACLU and the New York Civil Liberties Union filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking information from the Department of Homeland Security, CBP, TSA, and ICE about the implementation of face surveillance at airports and their plans to subject travelers to this technology in the future.
Court Case
Oct 2020
National Security
ACLU v. DOD - FOIA Case Seeking Trump Administration's Secret Rules for Lethal Strikes Abroad
In October 2017, the Trump administration secretly adopted rules governing the use of lethal force in drone strikes and other killings abroad. These rules, known as the “Principles, Standards, and Procedures,” reportedly loosen Obama-era safeguards against civilian casualties outside “areas of active hostilities.” On October 30, 2017, the ACLU filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act seeking public disclosure of these new rules. When the government failed to release them, we filed a lawsuit on December 21, 2017, to force their disclosure. The government responded by refusing even to acknowledge that the new rules exist. We challenged this unjustifiable secrecy—and on September 29, 2020, a federal court ordered that the government cannot keep the existence of its new killing rules a secret. Our fight to expose the contents of the rules goes on.
Explore case
Court Case
Oct 2020
National Security
ACLU v. DOD - FOIA Case Seeking Trump Administration's Secret Rules for Lethal Strikes Abroad
In October 2017, the Trump administration secretly adopted rules governing the use of lethal force in drone strikes and other killings abroad. These rules, known as the “Principles, Standards, and Procedures,” reportedly loosen Obama-era safeguards against civilian casualties outside “areas of active hostilities.” On October 30, 2017, the ACLU filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act seeking public disclosure of these new rules. When the government failed to release them, we filed a lawsuit on December 21, 2017, to force their disclosure. The government responded by refusing even to acknowledge that the new rules exist. We challenged this unjustifiable secrecy—and on September 29, 2020, a federal court ordered that the government cannot keep the existence of its new killing rules a secret. Our fight to expose the contents of the rules goes on.