Court Cases
All Cases
31 Court Cases
Apr 29, 2025
NATIONAL FAMILY PLANNING AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ASSOCIATION V. KENNEDY – CHALLENGING CUT-OFF OF FAMILY PLANNING FUNDS
Mar 26, 2025
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.
Mar 15, 2025
J.G.G. V. TRUMP – CHALLENGING UNLAWFUL USE OF THE ALIEN ENEMIES ACT OF 1789 TO DEPORT IMMIGRANTS WITHOUT DUE PROCESS
We filed this lawsuit alleging that the Alien Enemies Act had no application in this situation and violated the immigration statutes, which are explicit that they provide “the sole and exclusive procedure” by which the government may determine whether to remove an individual.
Feb 14, 2025
SUAZO-MULLER v. NOEM (formerly LAS AMERICAS IMMIGRANT ADVOCACY CENTER v. NOEM) – ACCESS TO COUNSEL FOR IMMIGRATION DETAINEES AT GUANTANAMO
Oct 28, 2024
K.Y. v. District of Columbia - challenging juvenile justice agency's warehousing of children in jail-like setting for months instead of promptly beginning rehabilitative placements
Jun 13, 2024
LAS AMERICAS IMMIGRANT ADVOCACY CENTER v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY – CHALLENGE TO BIDEN AND TRUMP EXECUTIVE ORDERS CUTTING OFF ASYLUM CLAIMS
May 06, 2024
Mathis v. U.S. Parole Commission - challenging failure to accommodate people's disabilities in setting conditions of parole and supervised release
This case, brought by a class of people who are or will be on parole or supervised release in Washington, D.C., challenges the failure of the federal government’s post-conviction supervision system to accommodate individuals with disabilities as required by federal law.
Dec 12, 2023
WALLBUILDERS V. WMATA – CHALLENGING METRO POLICY OF BANNING CONTROVERSIAL ADVERTISEMENTS
In this case, we argue that WMATA’s advertising guidelines violate the First Amendment, which prohibits government agencies from discriminating against private speech based on its viewpoint or from applying rules that so vague they can’t be applied consistently.
Stay Informed
Sign up to be the first to hear about how to take action.
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU’s privacy statement.
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU’s privacy statement.