Court Cases
Featured Cases
Jun 25, 2026
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.
Sgt. Beck moved to dismiss the claims against him, arguing among other things that he is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity because he did not violate rights that were "clearly established." That motion remains pending.
Meanwhile, in June 2026, the remaining defendants — the D.C. government and its officers — agreed to compensate Mr. O'Hara in exchange for dismissal of the claims against them.
Press Release
Jan 12, 2026
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.
Mar 4, 2026
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.
On February 19, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the preliminary injunction, arguing that Defendants are not complying with the preliminary injunction based on the arrest records they produced for warrantless civil immigration arrests in D.C. after the district court’s December 2 order as well as recent public statements made by high-ranking DHS officials on the legal standard for arrests and an internal ICE memorandum that was issued on January 28. The relief Plaintiffs seek includes training for Defendants’ agents on the correct legal standard to apply when making warrantless civil immigration arrests and additional reporting requirements regarding warrantless civil immigration arrests in D.C. The district court has set argument on the motion for March 11 at 10:00AM.
Following the hearing on March 11, both parties submitted supplemental briefing focused on the January 28th ICE memorandum, arguing that the memo misinterprets the probable cause standard for escape risk and asking the court to order Defendants not to rely on the probable cause standard or analysis in the memo. On May 7, 2026, the district court granted Plaintiffs' motion and ordered that “when conducting civil immigration arrests without a warrant in this District, defendants shall not rely on the probable cause standard or analytical approach set forth in the five-page memorandum from former Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Todd Lyons[.]”
All Cases
296 Court Cases
Oct 2, 2026
Nielsen v. Watanabe – Fighting for the Right To Seek Redress for Constitutional Violations by Federal Prison Officers
Kekai Watanabe was brutally attacked in a prison fight and his tailbone was broken. For months, prison staff at the federal prison in Hawai‘i where he was detained denied his requests for hospital care, providing him instead with over-the-counter pain medication. Mr. Watanabe sued, seeking damages for his months of pain and suffering. Doing so is his only way to hold accountable the officials who ignored his repeated requests for care.
But the government now argues that he has no right to sue a federal prison official. Although state and local officers who violate the Constitution in this same way could be sued for it, there's no federal law specifically creating a right to sue federal officers for constitutional violations, and so the government argues such suits cannot proceed. Using this type of reasoning, the Supreme Court in recent years has made it extremely difficult to sue federal officers.
This rule creates a major gap in constitutional enforcement, especially here in D.C., where there is a huge federal law enforcement presence. Because of the Supreme Court's hostility toward claims against federal officers, for instance, our case seeking damages for the massive, unprovoked assault on peaceful civil rights demonstrators at Lafayette Square in the summer of 2020 is proceeding on very different terms against the federal officers than against the local officers involved in the same incident: whereas against the D.C. police we have been allowed to proceed as a class action and will be able to seek punitive damages, we could proceed only on behalf of a handful of individuals (not a class) for constitutional violations by the U.S. Park Police, Secret Service, and other federal defendants like former Attorney General William Barr, and we cannot seek punitive damages for the federal offers' violations.
Together with the National ACLU and the ACLU of Hawai‘i, we filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Mr. Watanabe at the Supreme Court. Even the Court’s restrictive recent decisions about suing federal officers acknowledge that Congress, in the Westfall Act of 1988, preserved the ability to bring some federal officer claims. When Congress legislates about a well-established legal concept, courts presume that Congress intended to incorporate that established meaning. At the time of the Westfall Act’s passage, courts permitted claims—like Mr. Watanabe’s—alleging unconstitutionally deficient prison medical care by federal officers. Therefore, to respect the instructions of Congress, the courts should continue to permit such claims today.
A contrary result would be disastrous, and not just for Mr. Watanabe. One of the government’s main arguments here is that a federal-officer suit cannot proceed because federal prisons have an internal grievance process, known as the “ARP.” When appeals courts have applied this ahistorical limitation on what federal-officer suits are available, the results have been grotesque. For instance, the Eleventh Circuit recently relied on the ARP to reject a constitutional claim for fatally inadequate medical treatment of Hepatitis C in prison “even though [the plaintiff’s] estate could not use the ARP after his death.” Carrin v. Strong, 182 F.4th 1351, 1354 (11th Cir. 2026). The Third Circuit relied on the ARP to reject a constitutional claim for the failure to treat diabetic blisters that ultimately required the amputation of the plaintiff’s toe, even though the “effectiveness” of the ARP was “dubious.” Muniz v. United States, 149 F.4th 256, 258, 264 (3d Cir. 2025). And the Eleventh Circuit relied on the ARP in rejecting a constitutional claim for failure to treat an incarcerated plaintiff’s “severe but ultimately non-lethal physical injuries” even though “the district court found that he was denied access to the [ARP].” Johnson v. Terry, 119 F.4th 840, 858-60 (11th Cir. 2024). These outcomes are both unfair and contrary to what Congress directed when it acted in 1988.
The Supreme Court will hear argument in this case November 9.
Sep 30, 2026
CNN v. Trump – Challenging the President’s Decision To Ban from the White House News Outlets Whose Reporting He Doesn’t Like
Once again, the Trump Administration is attempting to exert unconstitutional control over the content of expression—this time, by banning from the White House news organizations whose reporting has displeased the President. This unconstitutional ban follows previous violations of press freedom by the Administration, including restricting the Associated Press’s access to official events after the outlet refused to adopt the Administration’s preferred name for the Gulf of Mexico, and the government’s crackdown on press access to the Pentagon by those who would not agree to report only official handouts. (We filed amicus briefs in both those cases, also.)
So once again, we (together with the National ACLU) are filing an amicus brief in support of the media’s First Amendment right to report as they see fit without governmental retaliation for news coverage the President doesn’t like. The President’s assertion of the power to banish journalists for disfavored coverage is an alarming part of a broader assault on free expression. The Administration has attempted to muzzle institutions like the bar, the academy, and the media that are at the heart of civil society and has retaliated against speakers of all kinds for espousing views the Administration dislikes. Our Nation’s history and other countries’ modern trajectories demonstrate the importance of upholding First Amendment protections here. When officials are allowed to punish media organizations for their reporting, repression and democratic backsliding often follow.
Sep 28, 2026
NATHAN v. TRUMP – Birthright Citizenship Part II
Soon after the Supreme Court ruled that President Trump’s Executive Order seeking to do away with birthright citizenship was unconstitutional, he tried again, with a new Executive Order, issued on August 6, 2026, that directs executive agencies not to recognize the citizenship of an individual “when neither parent of that person is a citizen” and: a) “either parent of that person is an alien enemy, defined to include” a member of certain designated terrorist organizations; b) “either parent of that person is a foreign government employee,” including not only foreign ministers with full diplomatic immunity but also various other employees of foreign governments or international organizations; c) “either parent of that person engaged in a commercial transaction to purchase or access birthright citizenship for the person, or engaged in fraudulent activity to obtain citizenship”; or d) “the person is born in a territory or territorial waters of the United States where citizenship is not conferred by Federal statute.”
On September 28, 2026, we and the National ACLU filed a new lawsuit challenging the new Executive Order. We allege that it is unconstitutional for the same reasons the first one was, and that it also violates the federal immigration statute, as Justice Kavanaugh opined was true of the first order.
The plaintiffs are:
“Clara,” a citizen of France; she and her husband work for international organizations in Washington, DC, and their son “Nathan,” who was born after the issuance of the new Executive Order.
“Patricia” and her husband, European citizens who also work for international organizations in the United States, and who are expecting a child in spring 2027.
“Edward,” a citizen of Australia; he and his Australian wife are expecting a child through surrogacy to be born in the United States in October 2026.
We will soon file a motion for a preliminary injunction asking the court to prevent executive agencies from refusing to recognize the citizenship of our clients’ children and others similarly situated.
Sep 22, 2026
Mahoney v. U.S. Capitol Police Board – Defending Courts’ Authority To Enjoin a Law that Facially Violates the First Amendment
Sep 11, 2026
New York Times v. Department of Defense - Opposing Government Control Over Pentagon Journalists' Reporting
Once again, the Trump Administration is attempting to exert unconstitutional control over the content of expression—this time, by affording executive officials unbridled discretion to revoke Pentagon correspondents’ press access for receiving, soliciting, or reporting “unauthorized” information.
In the fall of 2025, the Department of Defense promulgated a new policy granting Pentagon officials unbridled and standardless discretion to deem a journalist “a security or safety risk to [Department] personnel or property,” including on the basis of that journalist’s (or their news organization’s) receipt, publication, or “solicitation” of any information, classified or unclassified, that is not “authorized” by the Department. Under the Policy, such conduct—which is the bread and butter of independent journalism—is punishable by suspension of journalists' Pentagon access.
Rather than subject themselves to these viewpoint-based restraints on their reporting and the limitless discretion of Administration officials to kick them out, New York Times reporters turned in their press credentials and sued, asserting violations of the First Amendment and due process. Thereafter, the new "Pentagon press corps" consisted of ideological allies of the Trump Administration.
In January 2026, we and the National ACLU filed an amicus brief in support of the New York Times' motion for summary judgment. Our brief placed the Pentagon policy in historical and global context. We argued that American history shows that scrupulous protection of the press’s right to disseminate information, without fear or favor to those in power, is essential to our democracy. From early American history, to World War I, to the Second Red Scare, our country has regretted the moments it has faltered in protecting the free press. And we argued that developments in other democracies and former democracies highlight the dangers of allowing the government to infringe on speech and press freedoms. Across the world—including in the Philippines, Hungary, Turkey, and Russia—democracies have backslid into repressive regimes with few freedoms after their institutions failed to hold the line on free expression.
The lessons from history and other nations' experience should strengthen courts' resolve to apply the First Amendment rigorously, especially when the Trump Administration is relentlessly pursuing ideological conformity by attempting to punish or silence disfavored speech by lawyers, students, government employees, and universities, as well as journalists and media outlets.
On March 20, 2026, the court ruled for the Times and held that the Pentagon's new rules violated both due process and the First Amendment, because the policy did not "provide fair notice of what routine, lawful journalistic practices will result in the denial, suspension, or revocation" of a press credential, and because the policy discriminated against journalists based on their viewpoint, "that is, whether the individual or organization is willing to publish only stories that are favorable to or spoon-fed by Department leadership." The court's opinion began: "A primary purpose of the First Amendment is to enable the press to publish what it will and the public to read what it chooses, free of any official proscription. Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation’s security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech. That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now." Accordingly, the court enjoined the Pentagon's new rules.
In response, the Pentagon promulgated a new policy that further closed off Pentagon access and used new language to restore a regime similar to the enjoined policy. On April 9, the court ordered the government to halt the new policy as well, explaining that it would not "permit such a blatant attempt to circumvent a lawful order of the Court to succeed."
On April 10, the government appealed both orders to the D.C. Circuit.
In September 2026, we filed in the D.C. Circuit an updated version of our amicus brief in support of the Times in both appeals. The updated version of the brief contained an even longer chronicle of the Trump administration's crusade against disfavored viewpoints, as the attacks on protesters, civil society organizations, and journalists have continued. Our brief concluded by quoting Jefferson, who said, “[o]ur liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”
Aug 31, 2026
No Permanent Fence Around Lafayette Park
In early 2026, the Trump administration closed Lafayette Park, Malcom X (Meridian Hill) Park, and Columbus Circle (in front of Union Station) for repairs. The other two parks reopened in the spring, but even though the repairs at Lafayette Park have been completed it remains closed, surrounded by an ugly anti-riot fence.
In mid-July, the National Park Service published a proposal to erect a permanent fence around Lafayette Park, which it asserts is needed to protect the security of the President in the White House, but which we view as yet another effort by the Trump administration to prevent speech the President doesn’t want to hear. For more than 100 years, Lafayette Park has been perhaps the single most important forum for First Amendment activity directed at the President, from the Suffragists of the early 20th Century to the Black Lives Matter protests after George Floyd’s murder.
While the proposed fence would have gates that would theoretically be open under normal circumstances, we fear that they would often be closed to prevent First Amendment activity or even to trap demonstrators already in the park.
Under the National Historic Preservation Act, proposed changes to historic places like Lafayette Park must be reviewed with an eye toward minimizing destruction or interference with their historic values. We have signed up as a “consulting party” under section 160 of that Act so that we can participate in that process, seeking to protect the park’s historic use as a public forum. As part of that process, on August 26, 2026, we submitted a letter to the National Park Service outlining our concerns. We will continue to participate as that process moves forward.
Aug 7, 2026
National Trust for Historic Preservation v. National Park Service (White House Ballroom Challenge) – Protecting the Rule of Law and Separation of Powers by Urging the D.C. Circuit to Apply the Correct Standard for Claims that the Government is Acting Without Legal Authority
On July 31, 2025, the White House announced in a press release that it plans to build a ballroom funded by private donations at the site where the East Wing of the White House used to stand. The National Trust for Historic Preservation, a nonprofit that was chartered by Congress in 1949 to preserve America's historic resources, sued and moved for a preliminary injunction to stop the ballroom project. It alleges, among other things, that the proposed White House ballroom project is “ultra vires” (in excess of) the President and Executive Branch officials’ authority under the relevant statutes. The district court granted the Trust’s motion for a preliminary injunction, holding that it established a likelihood of success on the merits of its ultra vires claim.
The government appealed the district court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Among their arguments, the government contends that the Trust cannot satisfy the demanding standard—a “Hail Mary pass”—that they argue applies to the Trust’s ultra vires claim. According to the government, the Trust must show that the proposed ballroom project is contrary to a specific prohibition in a statute, rather than simply showing that the project is unauthorized by the relevant statutes.
On May 28, 2026, we filed an amicus brief in support of the Trust to refute the government’s argument that such a demanding standard applies to ultra vires claims. Under the default standard applicable in most cases, including this one, a plaintiff bringing an ultra vires claim is not required to show that a government official’s action was contrary to a specific prohibition in a statute. Instead, the plaintiff only needs to show that the official’s action was unauthorized by law. This default standard is over a century old and well-established in the Supreme Court’s precedents and supported by the D.C. Circuit’s precedents. By contrast, the demanding standard the government proposes for ultra vires claims should apply only where Congress has limited judicial review. Because there is no statutory limitation on judicial review of Plaintiff’s challenge to the proposed ballroom, the ordinary, default standard—rather than the heightened standard proposed by the government—applies.
The standard courts apply to ultra vires claims is important because it can determine whether the party challenging unlawful executive action will win or lose its claim. Under the government’s position, any time a party alleges that a government official is acting without legal authority and there is no private right of action in a statute, the party would need to satisfy the heightened “Hail Mary” standard, making it highly unlikely it will win. Such a rule would undermine rule of law and separation of powers principles and improperly hamper courts’ ability to review executive action for compliance with federal law. We therefore urged the D.C. Circuit in our amicus brief to reject the government’s sweeping position and apply the ordinary, default standard to the Trust’s ultra vires claim.
The D.C. Circuit held oral argument in this case on June 5, 2026. On August 7, 2026, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of the preliminary injunction in a 2-1 decision, holding that "[w]hether or not a massive ballroom should be constructed is for Congress to decide and is not a matter for Executive self-help."
Jul 29, 2026
MAKE THE ROAD NEW YORK V. NOEM (CHALLENGING “EXPEDITED REMOVAL” OF IMMIGRANTS)
The day after Donald Trump’s inauguration, his administration announced a new plan to massively expand fast-track deportation (called “expedited removal”) of undocumented immigrants without a fair legal process. The next day (January 22, 2025) we filed suit challenging that plan, together with the National ACLU and the New York Civil Liberties Union. The plaintiff in the lawsuit is Make the Road New York, an organization that serves immigrant communities in that state.
The policy targets undocumented immigrants nationwide. People apprehended by ICE who cannot prove that they are U.S. citizens, or that they have permission to be in the United States, or that they have been in the country continuously for at least two years, can be summarily deported. Under this rule, immigrants who may have been integrated into our communities would get less due process contesting their deportation than they would contesting a traffic ticket. Multiple U.S. citizens have been erroneously deported under the previous, much more limited version of “expedited removal,” because they have been unable to prove their status to the satisfaction of an immigration officer.
The lawsuit contends that such people are entitled to due process, meaning a fair opportunity to consult with counsel and to gather and present evidence showing that they are not subject to removal, including a fair opportunity to apply for asylum or other relief. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
In March, we filed an amended complaint with updated facts about the Trump administration’s new policies. The government filed a motion to dismiss the case, which we opposed, and also asked the court to rule on that motion before allowing us to seek even temporary relief against the program. The court denied the latter request, and on June 10 we filed our motion to postpone the implementation of the new program. After the government opposed that motion and we replied, the court heard argument on July 9, 2025.
On August 29, 2025, the court granted our motion and stayed (enjoined) the new policies. On September 2, the government appealed, and on September 9 filed a motion to stay the district court’s order pending appeal. On September 15 we filed our opposition and on September 19 the government replied. The court of appeals heard oral argument on October 6, and on November 22, in opinions totaling 100 pages, denied the government’s motion for a stay. Meanwhile, briefs were filed on the merits, and the court of appeals held argument on December 9, 2025.
On June 23, 2026, the court of appeals reversed, ruling that the government is not required “to instruct individuals on available defenses” against deportation. Judge Wilkins dissented, concluding that the failure to ask or advise about the two-year limit on the use of expedited removal violates due process. On July 27 we filed a petition for rehearing en banc, asking the full court to review the case.
Jul 29, 2026
King v. United States – Challenging National Guard Members’ Violent Seizure of a Veteran
Anna King is a retired U.S. Army captain and an Iraq War veteran, receiving a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star for her service. On May 8, 2026, she was at her home when three National Guard members walked through her gated patio and seized her, shoving her toward the ground, grabbing her arms, and applying handcuffs so tightly that they ruptured ligaments in her wrist, requiring surgery. It appears the officers who arrived at Ms. King’s home did not have a warrant for Ms. King’s arrest.
In conjunction with the law firm Levy Firestone Muse LLP, we filed an administrative Federal Tort Claims Act complaint with the Idaho National Guard (which employs several of the Guard members involved) and the Department of Defense to vindicate King’s rights.
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.