Featured Cases

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
Court Case
Mar 26, 2025
Three women federal workers in power poses
  • Equal Protection and Discrimination|
  • +4 Issues

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
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. 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.

All Cases

279 Court Cases
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
  • LGBTQ+ Rights|
  • +2 Issues

Kingdom v. Trump – Challenging Denial of Gender Affirming Care to Incarcerated People with Gender Dysphoria

Court Case
Jul 29, 2025
Placeholder image
  • Due Process/Procedural Rights

Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice; Jenner & Block LLP. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice; WilmerHale LLP v. Executive Office of the President; Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President – Opposing Trump’s Effort to Break the Rule of Law

Court Case
Jul 28, 2025
Placeholder image
  • Equal Protection and Discrimination|
  • +1 Issue

Withrow v. National Guard, et al. – Challenging Ban on Transgender and Intersex Federal Employees’ Ability To Use Bathroom That Accords with Their Gender Identity

Court Case
Jul 25, 2025
Placeholder image
  • Criminal Justice Reform|
  • +1 Issue

Martin v. United States – Fighting to preserve federal officer accountability for constitutional violations

Court Case
Jul 23, 2025
Placeholder image
  • National Security/War on Terror

CONNELL V. CIA – MISUSE OF THE “GLOMAR” RESPONSE

Court Case
Jul 21, 2025
Placeholder image
  • Immigrants' Rights|
  • +2 Issues

U.T. v. Barr (Challenging Government Policy of Sending Asylum-Seekers to Dangerous Countries)