Privacy & Technology
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
Learn About Privacy & Technology
Featured
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2018
Privacy & Technology
Carpenter v. United States
The Supreme Court ruled that the government needs a warrant to access a person’s cellphone location history. The court found in a 5 to 4 decision that obtaining such information is a search under the Fourth Amendment and that a warrant from a judge based on probable cause is required.
Court Case
Dec 2016
Privacy & Technology
Sarkar v. Doe - PubPeer Subpoena Challenge
The ACLU filed a motion in Michigan state court challenging the constitutionality of a subpoena issued to the website PubPeer demanding that it turn over the identities of anonymous commenters. In March 2015, the trial judge ruled that PubPeer had to unmask one – but only one – of the commenters. Both PubPeer and the researcher appealed, and the ruling was upheld in December 2016.
All Cases
85 Privacy & Technology Cases
Nevada
Sep 2026
Privacy & Technology
National Security
Killinger v. Jager
On September 21, 2026, the ACLU, ACLU of Nevada and the Innocence Project filed an amicus brief in the District of Nevada in support of Jason Killinger, a man wrongfully arrested after police relied on an incorrect result from facial recognition technology.
Explore case
Nevada
Sep 2026
Privacy & Technology
National Security
Killinger v. Jager
On September 21, 2026, the ACLU, ACLU of Nevada and the Innocence Project filed an amicus brief in the District of Nevada in support of Jason Killinger, a man wrongfully arrested after police relied on an incorrect result from facial recognition technology.
New Hampshire
Sep 2026
Privacy & Technology
LaValley v. Concord Housing and Redevelopment Authority
On September 2, 2026, the ACLU, ACLU of New Hampshire and New Hampshire Legal Assistance brought a class action lawsuit against the Concord Housing and Redevelopment Authority for installing and operating surveillance devices in tenants’ apartments. The devices collected hundreds of millions of data points recording movement, sound levels, and other information from inside tenants’ homes.
Explore case
New Hampshire
Sep 2026
Privacy & Technology
LaValley v. Concord Housing and Redevelopment Authority
On September 2, 2026, the ACLU, ACLU of New Hampshire and New Hampshire Legal Assistance brought a class action lawsuit against the Concord Housing and Redevelopment Authority for installing and operating surveillance devices in tenants’ apartments. The devices collected hundreds of millions of data points recording movement, sound levels, and other information from inside tenants’ homes.
Oregon Supreme Court
Aug 2026
Privacy & Technology
State v. Lane
Oregon law enforcement, without a warrant, installed surveillance cameras on two telephone poles near Petitioner’s home and recorded activity there for a month. The State argues that police can continuously surveil our most private spaces—our homes—without judicial oversight. The ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Oregon and the Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, filed an amicus brief arguing that police were required to obtain a warrant before conducting the extensive pole-camera surveillance at issue this case.
Explore case
Oregon Supreme Court
Aug 2026
Privacy & Technology
State v. Lane
Oregon law enforcement, without a warrant, installed surveillance cameras on two telephone poles near Petitioner’s home and recorded activity there for a month. The State argues that police can continuously surveil our most private spaces—our homes—without judicial oversight. The ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Oregon and the Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, filed an amicus brief arguing that police were required to obtain a warrant before conducting the extensive pole-camera surveillance at issue this case.
Virginia
Aug 2026
Privacy & Technology
National Security
In Re: Application of The United States Of America for an Order Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d)
Explore case
Virginia
Aug 2026
Privacy & Technology
National Security
In Re: Application of The United States Of America for an Order Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d)
New York
Jul 2026
Privacy & Technology
Leslie v. City of New York
Explore case
New York
Jul 2026
Privacy & Technology