Featured Cases

Court Case
Feb 07, 2022
Placeholder image
  • Immigrants' Rights|
  • +2 Issues

AAMIR SHAIKH V. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (ICE) – SEEKING COVID-19 BOOSTER SHOTS FOR MEDICALLY VULNERABLE ICE DETAINEES

The ACLU-DC filed this lawsuit, together with the ACLU’s National Prison Project and Immigrants’ Rights Project, on behalf of five medically vulnerable people detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) who have requested and been denied COVID-19 vaccine booster shots.

All Cases

278 Court Cases
Court Case
Sep 25, 2025
Placeholder image
  • Police Practices and Police Misconduct|
  • +1 Issue

Escobar Molina v. Dep’t of Homeland Security – Challenging Warrantless Immigration Arrests Without Probable Cause in D.C.

On September 25, 2025, four Washington, D.C. community members and the national immigration organization CASA sued the Trump administration to end its policy and practice of making immigration arrests in D.C. without a warrant and without probable cause. The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia, American Civil Liberties Union, Amica Center for Immigrants’ Rights, CASA, National Immigration Project, the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, and the law firm of Covington & Burling. Since August, federal officers from multiple agencies have made hundreds of immigration arrests in the District. The officers frequently patrol and set up checkpoints in neighborhoods where a large number of immigrants live and stop and arrest people as they go about their daily lives. The law typically requires an agent to have a warrant when arresting someone for an immigration violation. One exception to the warrant requirement is when the agent has probable cause both that a person is in the United States in violation of the law and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. According to the lawsuit, the Trump administration has a policy and practice of making immigration arrests without a warrant and without an individualized determination of probable cause that the person is in the country unlawfully and that the person is a flight risk. Each plaintiff in the case was arrested, detained, and released. The lawsuit was filed as a class action. The plaintiffs seek a court ruling to prevent the government from conducting such unlawful arrests against them and others in the future.
Court Case
Sep 23, 2025
Placeholder image
  • Immigrants' Rights

MAKE THE ROAD NEW YORK V. NOEM (CHALLENGING “EXPEDITED REMOVAL” OF IMMIGRANTS)

Court Case
Sep 15, 2025
Placeholder image
  • D.C. Statehood

District of Columbia v. Trump - Opposing President Trump's Militarization of Law Enforcement in D.C.

On August 11, 2025, President Trump invoked a section of the Home Rule Act permitting him to demand services from the D.C. police for federal purposes, and began flooding the District with federal agents, D.C. National Guard, and National Guard from other states. With a month, the D.C. government sued Trump twice — first to block him from taking over the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department entirely (a suit that induced Trump to back down from that attempt) and then to challenge the deployment of the National Guard. The first case proceeded too quickly for us to file a brief. In the second (both are called District of Columbia v. Trump), we filed an amicus brief supporting the District's lawsuit. Together with our co-counsel Washington Lawyers Committee, and joined by a broad coalition of D.C. nonprofits devoted to serving D.C. residents and fighting for D.C. autonomy (Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, Bread for the City, Children’s Law Center, DC Appleseed Center for Law & Justice, Disability Rights DC, Legal Aid DC, School Justice Project, Tzedek DC, and Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless), we explained how this most recent attempt to impose on D.C. a law enforcement presence not democratically accountable to the people of D.C. is part of a long history, stretching back 200 years to the founding of the District and often tinged with implicit or explicit racism, of denying D.C. residents full self-governance. Although every other American city and state can take this basic element of representative democracy as a given, for D.C., it have been elusive and, even when obtained, only tenuously held. Setting loose American troops—locally unaccountable and not trained for domestic law enforcement—to police the streets of D.C. neighborhoods on the thin pretext of an “emergency,” is anathema to principles of democratic accountability and our longstanding norm of civilian, not military policing. Additionally, we explain how a locally unaccountable law enforcement presence is likely to be less trusted by the community and therefore less effective — thus showing that Trump's move will make D.C. less safe, not more.
Court Case
Sep 09, 2025
Placeholder image
  • Freedom of Speech and Association

Arab Student Union of Jackson-Reed High School v. District of Columbia - Challenging suppression of pro-Palestinian student speech

The Arab Student Union’s activities would not be disruptive; they are the same kinds of activities in which other student clubs engage. Their speech has been suppressed because the school does not want their viewpoint to be heard.
Court Case
Sep 08, 2025
Placeholder image
  • Freedom of Speech and Association

NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO v. TRUMP and PUBLIC BROADCASTING SYSTEM v. TRUMP – OPPOSING DEFUNDING OF PUBLIC BROADCASTING

On May 1, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order titled “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media,” which directs the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and federal agencies to terminate all direct and indirect funding to NPR and PBS in explicit retaliation for the broadcasting organizations’ editorial and journalistic choices, which the order characterizes as “biased” and “partisan.” NPR and PBS each filed lawsuits challenging the executive order. On June 20, we ACLU filed amicus briefs in both cases (together with the National ACLU and the ACLUs of Colorado and Minnesota, where some plaintiffs in the cases are located), supporting the NPR and PBS motions for summary judgment, and arguing that the executive order constitutes a flagrant violation of the First Amendment because it retaliates against both speakers solely for their constitutionally protected speech, including the words they choose to use in coverage and what stories they choose to highlight. The briefs also argue that the order unconstitutionally restricts federal funding, including funds appropriated for local public broadcasters throughout the country to use as they see fit, based on President Trump’s disapproval of NPR’s and PBS’ news coverage. The briefs warn that the executive order threatens the editorial independence of local public broadcasters nationwide, undermines the congressionally mandated purpose of the Public Broadcasting Act, and endangers essential infrastructure like the Public Radio Satellite System, which reaches 99 percent of the U.S. population and plays a critical role in national emergency communications. As of August 2025, there has been no ruling in either case.
Court Case
Aug 28, 2025
Placeholder image
  • Voting Rights

BOST v. ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS - OPPOSING THE SHUTTING OF COURTHOUSE DOORS TO ELECTION-LAW CHALLENGES

In this case, a Republican congressman from Illinois sued to challenge a state ballot counting deadline. His case was dismissed for lack of "standing" — meaning a personal stake in the outcome that is a prerequisite to filing a case in federal court. The lower courts ruled that it wasn't enough that the plaintiff's campaign had to spend money to cope with the election rule that he was challenging. When the Supreme Court agreed to review the case, we saw an important opportunity. Although we vigorously disagree with the congressman's position on the merits, it's vitally important that courts remain open to plaintiffs challenging voting rules that may disadvantage them. We have represented the League of Women Voters in such cases, and the government always seeks to challenge their standing, making the same types of arguments that kicked the plaintiff out of court here. Together with the League of Women Voters, the National ACLU, the ACLU of Illinois, and the Rutherford Institute, we filed an amicus brief in July 2025 to urge the Supreme Court to hold to its previous rulings permitting plaintiffs to sue based on economic harms to their organization. As we summarize our point in the brief: "political actors, candidates, and civic organizations may have standing to challenge electoral laws and regulations that affect their activities, force them to divert resources, and thus cause them concrete and tangible harms." Preserving access to the federal courts is fundamental to the defense of civil liberties and civil rights, because courts cannot vindicate these rights if they lack the power to hear the case in the first place.
Court Case
Aug 06, 2025
Placeholder image

CROWE v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS – STOP IMPRISONING PEOPLE BEYOND THEIR RELEASE DATES

Court Case
Jul 29, 2025
Placeholder image
  • Racial Justice|
  • +2 Issues

Black Lives Matter D.C. v. Trump – Challenging Federal Officers’ Unprovoked Attack on Civil Rights Demonstrators at Lafayette Square in Front of the White House

A coalition of civil rights orgs sued President Trump and high-level officials for tear-gassing protesters outside the White House on June 1, 2020.
Court Case
Jul 29, 2025
Placeholder image
  • Immigrants' Rights

Refugee And Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services V. Trump – Preventing President Trump from Summarily Expelling Refugees Seeking Asylum