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

282 Court Cases
Court Case
Jan 15, 2026
Placeholder image
  • Freedom of Speech and Association|
  • +1 Issue

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.
Court Case
Dec 31, 2025
Placeholder image
  • Immigrants' Rights|
  • +2 Issues

Damus v. Nielson - Challenging Trump Administration’s Unlawful Detention of Asylum Seekers

Court Case
Dec 31, 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
Dec 22, 2025
Placeholder image
  • Immigrants' Rights

J.G.G. v. Trump – Challenging Unlawful Use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1789 to Deport Immigrants Without Due Process

Court Case
Dec 19, 2025
Placeholder image
  • Immigrants' Rights|
  • +2 Issues

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

Court Case
Dec 05, 2025
Placeholder image
  • Immigrants' Rights

M.A. v. Noem (Formerly M.A. v. Mayorkas) - Challenging Government's Attempts to Block Asylum Claims

We filed this lawsuit in June 2023 to challenge a Biden Administration regulation making it nearly impossible for people entering the United States through the southern border to seek asylum. We alleged that the regulation violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and is arbitrary and capricious, violating the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Court Case
Dec 05, 2025
Placeholder image
  • Voting Rights

League of Women Voters Educ. Fund v. Trump (a.k.a. LULAC v. Exec. Office of the President) - Challenging Executive Order Requiring Voters To Show Citizenship Documents To Register

Court Case
Dec 01, 2025
Placeholder image
  • Immigrants' Rights

ACLU V. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY – FOIA REGARDING DEATHS IN ICE CUSTODY

Court Case
Nov 21, 2025
Placeholder image
  • Equal Protection and Discrimination|
  • +1 Issue

Withrow v. United States: Challenging Ban on Transgender and Intersex Federal Employees’ Ability To Use Bathroom That Accords with Their Gender Identity