吃瓜大本营

The ACLU, the NYCLU, and the CLEAR project at CUNY Law School filed a lawsuit in June 2013 challenging the New York City Police Department's discriminatory and unjustified surveillance of New York Muslims. We were later joined by the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP. The plaintiffs include three religious and community leaders, two mosques, and one charitable organization, all of whom were subject to the NYPD's unconstitutional religious profiling program. In January 2016, we announced a proposed settlement in the case with important reforms that include a bar against NYPD investigations on the basis of race, religion, or ethnicity, and the creation of a civilian representative position to oversee rules that safeguard against discriminatory and unjustified NYPD surveillance. That settlement was a joint one, with both the NYPD and the lawyers in Handschu v. Special Services Division, a long-standing class action that challenged the NYPD鈥檚 unlawful surveillance of political groups and activists. In October 2016, the federal district court judge presiding over the Handschu case held that he would approve the settlement if the parties agreed to three alterations, which would further strengthen protections. In March 2017, the courts in both Handschu and Raza approved the revised settlement.

Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act permits warrantless surveillance of Americans鈥� international communications, and the government has used that authority to seize and search the personal communications of Americans and others on an immense scale. In September 2016, the ACLU submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to several government agencies seeking basic information about how the government conducts surveillance under Section 702. In November 2016, we filed a lawsuit to enforce the request in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The ACLU has joined a lawsuit brought by an Idaho nurse challenging the constitutionality of the National Security Agency鈥檚 mass collection of Americans' phone records.

On June 11, 2013, the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of the National Security Agency鈥檚 mass collection of Americans鈥� phone records. The complaint argues that the dragnet violates the right to privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment as well as the freedoms of speech and association protected by the First Amendment. The complaint also charges that the program exceeds the authority that Congress provided in Section 215 of the Patriot Act. In May 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the call-records program violates Section 215 of the Patriot Act. Weeks later, on June 1, 2015, Section 215 briefly expired for the first time since the passage of the Patriot Act in 2001. The next day, Congress passed the USA Freedom Act, which amended Section 215 to prohibit the bulk collection of Americans鈥� call records.