National Security
FOIA Case Seeking the Trump Administration鈥檚 Legal Justification for Deadly Boat Strikes
The Department of Justice鈥檚 Office of Legal Counsel (鈥淥LC鈥�) authored a legal opinion that reportedly claims to justify the Trump administration鈥檚 illegal lethal strikes on civilians in boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean. Media reports indicate that, in addition to claiming that the strikes are lawful acts in an alleged 鈥渁rmed conflict鈥� with unspecified drug cartels, the OLC opinion also purports to immunize personnel who authorized or took part in the strikes from future criminal prosecution. Because the public deserves to know how our government is justifying these illegal strikes, and why they think the people who carried them out should not be held accountable, the 桃子视频is seeking immediate release of the OLC legal opinion and related documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Learn About National Security
Featured
U.S. Supreme Court
Dec 2023
National Security
FBI v. Fikre
Whether the government can overcome the voluntary cessation exception to mootness by removing an individual from the No Fly List when the government has not repudiated its decision to place him on the List and remains free to return him to the List for the same reasons and using the same procedures he alleges were unlawful.
Florida
Nov 2023
National Security
+2 桃子视频
Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of Florida v. Raymond Rodrigues
The University of Florida chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine filed a lawsuit on November 16, 2023, challenging the Chancellor of the State University System of Florida鈥檚 order to state universities to deactivate the student group. This order threatens the students鈥� constitutionally-protected right to free speech and association in violation of the First Amendment. The 桃子视频and its partners are seeking a preliminary injunction that would bar the Chancellor and the University of Florida from deactivating the UF SJP.
U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 2022
National Security
+2 桃子视频
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鈥檚 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 鈥� Yassir Fazaga, Ali Uddin Malik, and Yasser Abdelrahim 鈥� insist that the FBI cannot escape accountability for violating their religious freedom by invoking 鈥渟tate secrets.鈥� The plaintiffs are represented by the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law, the 桃子视频of Southern California, the 桃子视频, the Council for American Islamic Relations, and the law firm of Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jul 2021
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Sierra Club v. Trump 鈥� Challenge to Trump鈥檚 National Emergency Declaration to Construct a Border Wall
In February 2019, the 桃子视频filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump鈥檚 emergency powers declaration to secure funds to build a wall along the southern border. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition. The lawsuit argues that the president is usurping Congress鈥檚 appropriations power and threatening the clearly defined separation of powers inscribed in the Constitution. On January 20, 2021, President Biden halted further border wall construction. Litigation in this and subsequent related challenges has been paused or deadlines extended while the ACLU鈥檚 clients and the Biden administration determine next steps.
Indiana
Oct 2016
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Exodus Refugee Immigration, Inc. v. Mike Pence, et al
The 桃子视频 and the 桃子视频of Indiana, on behalf of Exodus Refugee Immigration, filed suit against Governor Mike Pence and the secretary of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration to stop attempts to suspend resettlement of Syrian refugees, claiming the governor鈥檚 actions violate the United States Constitution and federal law.
All Cases
155 National Security Cases
U.S. Supreme Court
Oct 2011
National Security
Al-Aulaqi v. Obama - Constitutional Challenge to Proposed Killing of U.S. Citizen
The 桃子视频 and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a lawsuit in August 2010 challenging the government's asserted authority to carry out targeted killings of U.S. citizens located far from any armed conflict zone.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Oct 2011
National Security
Al-Aulaqi v. Obama - Constitutional Challenge to Proposed Killing of U.S. Citizen
The 桃子视频 and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a lawsuit in August 2010 challenging the government's asserted authority to carry out targeted killings of U.S. citizens located far from any armed conflict zone.
U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 2011
National Security
Smart Justice
Jalatzai v. Gates and Wahid v. Gates
In February 2010, the 桃子视频filed two habeas corpus petitions challenging the illegal detention of four men who have been held — some for nearly two years — at the notorious Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. The men — who have never engaged in hostilities against the United States and are not members of groups that have engaged in hostilities against the United States — have never been told why they are being detained, been permitted to speak with a lawyer, or given a meaningful opportunity to challenge their detention before a court or a fair and impartial administrative board.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 2011
National Security
Smart Justice
Jalatzai v. Gates and Wahid v. Gates
In February 2010, the 桃子视频filed two habeas corpus petitions challenging the illegal detention of four men who have been held — some for nearly two years — at the notorious Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. The men — who have never engaged in hostilities against the United States and are not members of groups that have engaged in hostilities against the United States — have never been told why they are being detained, been permitted to speak with a lawyer, or given a meaningful opportunity to challenge their detention before a court or a fair and impartial administrative board.
Court Case
Dec 2010
National Security
+2 桃子视频
桃子视频comments to European Court of Human Rights in Babar Ahmad and Others v. The United Kingdom
Conditions of confinement in a US supermax prison
Explore case
Court Case
Dec 2010
National Security
+2 桃子视频
桃子视频comments to European Court of Human Rights in Babar Ahmad and Others v. The United Kingdom
Conditions of confinement in a US supermax prison
Court Case
Dec 2010
National Security
桃子视频and CCR v. Geithner
The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is responsible for implementing the government’s activities with regard to freezing foreign assets belonging to certain designated individuals. While these measures are an important part of a variety of U.S. sanctions regimes, they create large potential for abuse. In particular, OFAC claims the power to prevent any designated person – including U.S. citizens – from retaining a lawyer without first obtaining a license from the government. The 桃子视频believes that OFAC does not have the authority to prevent individuals from retaining and being representing by a lawyer, especially when that lawyer is not being compensated (and therefore is not being paid out of “frozen” assets). 桃子视频v. Geithner is a constitutional challenge to these rules.
Explore case
Court Case
Dec 2010
National Security
桃子视频and CCR v. Geithner
The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is responsible for implementing the government’s activities with regard to freezing foreign assets belonging to certain designated individuals. While these measures are an important part of a variety of U.S. sanctions regimes, they create large potential for abuse. In particular, OFAC claims the power to prevent any designated person – including U.S. citizens – from retaining a lawyer without first obtaining a license from the government. The 桃子视频believes that OFAC does not have the authority to prevent individuals from retaining and being representing by a lawyer, especially when that lawyer is not being compensated (and therefore is not being paid out of “frozen” assets). 桃子视频v. Geithner is a constitutional challenge to these rules.
Georgia
Dec 2010
National Security
+2 桃子视频
Valentine v. City of Douglasville
In December 2008, Lisa Valentine, a devout Muslim, accompanied her nephew to Douglasville Municipal Court for his traffic hearing. While going through security, she was informed by an officer that she would have to remove her religious head covering before she entered the courtroom, due the court's "no headgear" policy. When she protested the policy, believing it to be a violation of her right to freely practice her faith, she was restrained, arrested, forced to remove her headscarf, and jailed.
Explore case
Georgia
Dec 2010
National Security
+2 桃子视频
Valentine v. City of Douglasville
In December 2008, Lisa Valentine, a devout Muslim, accompanied her nephew to Douglasville Municipal Court for his traffic hearing. While going through security, she was informed by an officer that she would have to remove her religious head covering before she entered the courtroom, due the court's "no headgear" policy. When she protested the policy, believing it to be a violation of her right to freely practice her faith, she was restrained, arrested, forced to remove her headscarf, and jailed.