California
O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed
The ACLU, the ACLU of Northern California, and the ACLU of Southern California filed amicus briefs in support of everyday people fighting for government transparency and accountability in two cases set for review by the U.S. Supreme Court this Term: O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Featured
U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 2022
Privacy & Technology
+2 Issues
FBI v. Fazaga
In a case scheduled to be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on November 8, 2021, three Muslim Americans are challenging the FBI’s secret spying on them and their communities based on their religion, in violation of the Constitution and federal law. In what will likely be a landmark case, the plaintiffs — Yassir Fazaga, Ali Uddin Malik, and Yasser Abdelrahim — insist that the FBI cannot escape accountability for violating their religious freedom by invoking “state secrets.” The plaintiffs are represented by the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law, the ACLU of Southern California, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Council for American Islamic Relations, and the law firm of Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai.
U.S. Supreme Court
Aug 2023
Free Speech
O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed
The ACLU, the ACLU of Northern California, and the ACLU of Southern California filed amicus briefs in support of everyday people fighting for government transparency and accountability in two cases set for review by the U.S. Supreme Court this Term: O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed.
U.S. Supreme Court
Aug 2021
Immigrants' Rights
Innovation Law Lab v. Wolf
The American Civil Liberties Union, Southern Poverty Law Center, and Center for Gender & Refugee Studies filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s new policy forcing asylum seekers to return to Mexico and remain there while their cases are considered.
California
Mar 2019
Racial Justice
MediaJustice, et al. v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al.
On March 21, 2019, the American Civil Liberties Union and MediaJustice, formerly known as "Center for Media Justice," filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking records about FBI targeting of Black activists. The lawsuit enforces the ACLU and MediaJustice’s right to information about a 2017 FBI Intelligence Assessment that asserts, without evidence, that a group of so-called “Black Identity Extremists” poses a threat of domestic terrorism. The Intelligence Assessment was widely disseminated to law enforcement agencies nationwide, raising public concern about government surveillance of Black people and Black-led organizations based on anti-Black stereotypes and First Amendment protected activities.
All San Diego & Imperial Counties Cases
- Select Affiliate
- Northern California
- Southern California
- San Diego & Imperial Counties
9 San Diego & Imperial Counties Cases
California
Apr 2024
Religious Liberty
LGBTQ Rights
California Civil Rights Department v. Cathy's Creations d/b/a Tastries
On April 11, 2024, the ACLU, ACLU of Southern California, ACLU of Northern California, and ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties filed an amicus brief with the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District supporting the California Civil Rights Department’s appeal of a lower court judgment finding that a bakery owner did not violate the California public accommodations law when she refused to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple.
Explore case
California
Apr 2024
Religious Liberty
LGBTQ Rights
California Civil Rights Department v. Cathy's Creations d/b/a Tastries
On April 11, 2024, the ACLU, ACLU of Southern California, ACLU of Northern California, and ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties filed an amicus brief with the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District supporting the California Civil Rights Department’s appeal of a lower court judgment finding that a bakery owner did not violate the California public accommodations law when she refused to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple.
California
Jul 2018
Racial Justice
Sigma Beta XI v County of Riverside
RIVERSIDE, CA — In the settlement of a lawsuit against the unconstitutional Youth Accountability Team (YAT) program in Riverside County that treated thousands of youths — especially those of color — like hardened criminals for minor adolescent misbehaviors, the county has agreed to groundbreaking measures.
Explore case
California
Jul 2018
Racial Justice
Sigma Beta XI v County of Riverside
RIVERSIDE, CA — In the settlement of a lawsuit against the unconstitutional Youth Accountability Team (YAT) program in Riverside County that treated thousands of youths — especially those of color — like hardened criminals for minor adolescent misbehaviors, the county has agreed to groundbreaking measures.
California
Aug 2014
Immigrants' Rights
Lopez-Venegas v. Johnson
In June 2013, a class action lawsuit was filed by the ACLU on behalf of nine Mexican nationals and three immigrant advocacy organizations who challenged deceptive tactics used by Border Patrol agents and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers to convince the plaintiffs to sign their own expulsion orders. All of the plaintiffs would have had strong claims to remain in the United States had they gone before an immigration judge instead of being pressured to choose "voluntary departure," one of the many ways that the government can swiftly expel someone from the country without a hearing.
Explore case
California
Aug 2014
Immigrants' Rights
Lopez-Venegas v. Johnson
In June 2013, a class action lawsuit was filed by the ACLU on behalf of nine Mexican nationals and three immigrant advocacy organizations who challenged deceptive tactics used by Border Patrol agents and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers to convince the plaintiffs to sign their own expulsion orders. All of the plaintiffs would have had strong claims to remain in the United States had they gone before an immigration judge instead of being pressured to choose "voluntary departure," one of the many ways that the government can swiftly expel someone from the country without a hearing.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2013
LGBTQ Rights
Hollingsworth v. Perry
Whether California’s Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to define marriage as solely between a man and a woman, violates equal protection.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2013
LGBTQ Rights
Hollingsworth v. Perry
Whether California’s Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to define marriage as solely between a man and a woman, violates equal protection.
U.S. Supreme Court
Nov 2012
National Security
Privacy & Technology
NASA v. Nelson
Whether the government may require Caltech employees working under contract at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in "low-risk" and "non-sensitive" jobs to disclose, among other things, information about medical treatment and psychological counseling that they may have received in connection with illegal drug use.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Nov 2012
National Security
Privacy & Technology
NASA v. Nelson
Whether the government may require Caltech employees working under contract at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in "low-risk" and "non-sensitive" jobs to disclose, among other things, information about medical treatment and psychological counseling that they may have received in connection with illegal drug use.