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
Sep 23, 2025
Placeholder image
  • Immigrants' Rights

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

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
  • 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 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 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