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
Dec 18, 2020
Placeholder image
  • Due Process/Procedural Rights|
  • +1 Issue

Cruz-Martin v. Dept. of Homeland Security – Defending due process for government employees

We represented an attorney for the TSA whose job was suspended without pay after his security clearance was revoked without adequate warning or opportunity to respond to the revocation.
Court Case
Oct 20, 2020
Placeholder image
  • Criminal Justice Reform

Fraternal Order of Police v. District of Columbia - Requiring Prompt Release of Body-Worn Camera Videos

The D.C. Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) sued to block that legislation, claiming that it violated the separation of powers (arguing that only the Mayor has the power to supervise the police) and infringed the substantive due process privacy rights of officers.
Court Case
Oct 05, 2020
Placeholder image
  • Immigrants' Rights|
  • +1 Issue

P.J.E.S. v. Wolf - Defending Due Process Rights for Children Seeking Refuge in the U.S. During the COVID-19 Pandemic

This case challenges the Trump administration’s policy of expelling refugees without any of the protections required by the immigration laws, on the ground that they might have COVID-19 infections.
Court Case
Oct 01, 2020
Placeholder image
  • Freedom of Speech and Association|
  • +2 Issues

Dashtamirova v. United States

The ACLU-DC filed a formal complaint on behalf of a protestor who was injured by the National Guard’s use of low-flying helicopters to intimidate racial justice demonstrators.
Court Case
Aug 25, 2020
Placeholder image
  • Criminal Justice Reform

ACLU v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

Court Case
Jul 24, 2020
Placeholder image
  • Due Process/Procedural Rights|
  • +2 Issues

Texas Civil Rights Project v. Wolf -- Defending due process rights for children seeking refuge in U.S. during COVID19 pandemic

Court Case
Jul 20, 2020
Placeholder image
  • Freedom of Speech and Association

Ahmed v. Department of For-Hire Vehicles -- Cursing a cop is protected speech

Court Case
Jul 13, 2020
Placeholder image
  • Immigrants' Rights|
  • +2 Issues

J.B.B.C v. Wolf – Defending Due Process Rights for Children Seeking Refuge in the U.S. During COVID-19 Pandemic

This was the the nation’s first legal challenge to the Trump administration’s order restricting immigration based on an unprecedented and unlawful invocation of the Public Health Service Act.
Court Case
Jul 13, 2020
Placeholder image
  • Immigrants' Rights|
  • +2 Issues

Hassoun v. Searles – challenging indefinite detention without due process