Featured Cases

Court Case
Dec 02, 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. On October 3, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and a motion for a preliminary injunction, to stay agency action, and for provisional class certification to ask the Court to order Defendants and their agents to stop making warrantless immigration arrests without probable cause for flight risk, as required by the Immigration and Nationality Act. On November 19, 2025, the district court heard oral argument on Plaintiffs’ motions. On December 2, 2025, the district court denied without prejudice Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, to stay agency action, and for provisional class certification. It issued an order preliminarily enjoining the government from enforcing its policy or practice of making warrantless civil immigration arrests in D.C. without a pre-arrest individualized determination by the arresting agent of probable cause that the person being arrested is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. It also provisionally certified a class consisting of “[a]ll persons who, since August 11, 2025, have been or will be arrested in this District for alleged immigration violations without a warrant and without a pre-arrest, individualized assessment of probable cause that the person poses an escape risk” for purposes of the preliminary injunction. The court further ordered the government to document the facts supporting an arresting agent’s probable cause to believe a person is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained and to periodically provide such documentation to Plaintiffs’ counsel.
Court Case
Dec 03, 2025
Three women federal workers in power poses
  • Equal Protection and Discrimination|
  • +4 Issues

Fell v. Trump (formerly Stainnak v. Trump) - Challenging Purge of DEI-Associated Federal Workers As Discriminatory and Retaliatory for Perceived Political Beliefs

Federal employees filed a complaint against the Trump administration for targeting workers, especially people of color, women, and non-binary workers, for participating in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) activities, violating their First Amendment rights.
Court Case
Oct 23, 2025
Placeholder image
  • Freedom of Speech and Association|
  • +1 Issue

O’Hara v. Beck: Defending the Right To Protest the National Guard

In Star Wars, the Imperial March is the music that plays when Darth Vader and his storm troopers enter the scene. It’s also the soundtrack of Sam O’Hara’s protest against the National Guard’s presence in D.C. National Guard troops arrived in the District after President Donald Trump deployed them to support local police—an act that Mr. O’Hara views as a violation of centuries-old norms against militarizing domestic law enforcement and a threat to individual freedom. To highlight the surreal danger of the deployment, Mr. O’Hara began walking behind Guard members when he saw them in the community, playing The Imperial March on his phone, and recording. Most community members got the point of the protest, and so did several members of the Guard, who either smiled or laughed in response. Ohio National Guard Sgt. Devon Beck, however, was not amused by the satire. He threatened to call MPD if Mr. O’Hara didn’t stop his protest. When Mr. O’Hara persisted, Sgt. Beck recruited MPD officers to the scene, and the officers proceeded to detain and handcuff Mr. O’Hara, ending his demonstration. The First and Fourth Amendments (not to mention D.C. law) bar government officials from detaining people just because of their speech. Mr. O’Hara is suing to vindicate that principle. Press Release

All Cases

281 Court Cases
Court Case
Jul 11, 2019
Placeholder image
  • Privacy|
  • +1 Issue

Weir v. United States - Challenging Inhumane Detention Conditions and Property Destruction by U.S. Coast Guard

Court Case
Jul 11, 2019
Placeholder image
  • Privacy|
  • +1 Issue

Coast Guard Seizure FOIA Request

Court Case
Jul 04, 2019
Placeholder image
  • Freedom of Speech and Association

District of Columbia v. Johnson - Defending Protestor’s First Amendment Right to Burn the U.S. Flag

Court Case
Apr 29, 2019
Placeholder image
  • Police Practices and Police Misconduct|
  • +1 Issue

Price v. Gupton - Challenging Warrantless Search of Residential Property Belonging to Mother Whose Son Had Just Been Killed by D.C. Police

Court Case
Apr 08, 2019
Placeholder image
  • Criminal Justice Reform|
  • +1 Issue

Baxter v. Bracey - Challenge to Qualified Immunity Doctrine, Which Shields Officials from Accountability When They Violate the Constitution

Court Case
Oct 31, 2018
Placeholder image
  • Women's Rights/Gender Equity|
  • +2 Issues

Gordon v. United States - Enforcement of the Equal Pay Act to Eliminate Sex-Based Pay Disparity

Court Case
Aug 30, 2018
Placeholder image
  • Disability Rights|
  • +1 Issue

Arthur v. District of Columbia Housing Authority - Asserting Disability Rights Claim For Deaf Public-Housing Tenant Denied Visits from Her Son Because She Couldn’t Hear Her Phone

The ACLU-DC and the law firm of Arnold & Porter filed a lawsuit against the D.C. Housing Authority (DCHA) for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the D.C. Human Rights Act on behalf of Evelyn Arthur, a 77-year-old deaf woman living in D.C. public housing.
Court Case
Aug 16, 2018
Placeholder image
  • Criminal Justice Reform|
  • +2 Issues

ACLU-DC v. Department of Justice - FOIA Re: Shackling Of Detainees In Court Appearances

Court Case
Aug 07, 2018
Placeholder image
  • Immigrants' Rights|
  • +1 Issue

Grace v. Barr - Challenge to Trump Administration’s Narrow Interpretation of Asylum Law