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 2005
National Security
Garcetti v. Ceballos
Reviewing whether a government whistleblower forfeits all First Amendment protection by speaking out in the course of his or her job. DECIDED
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Oct 2005
National Security
Garcetti v. Ceballos
Reviewing whether a government whistleblower forfeits all First Amendment protection by speaking out in the course of his or her job. DECIDED
U.S. Supreme Court
May 2005
National Security
Religious Liberty
Cutter v. Wilkinson
Reviewing the constitutionality of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, a federal law designed in part to protect the free exercise rights of prisoners and other institutionalized persons. DECIDED
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
May 2005
National Security
Religious Liberty
Cutter v. Wilkinson
Reviewing the constitutionality of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, a federal law designed in part to protect the free exercise rights of prisoners and other institutionalized persons. DECIDED
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2005
National Security
+2 桃子视频
Benitez v. Mata
Reviewing the government's claim that "Mariel" Cubans can be subject to indefinite detention if they have been found excludable from the United States and Cuba will not allow their return. DECIDED
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2005
National Security
+2 桃子视频
Benitez v. Mata
Reviewing the government's claim that "Mariel" Cubans can be subject to indefinite detention if they have been found excludable from the United States and Cuba will not allow their return. DECIDED
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2004
National Security
Smart Justice
Rasul v. Bush
Reviewing a ruling that the federal courts are not entitled to hear a claim that detainees at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba are being held in violation of the Constitution and international law. DECIDED
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2004
National Security
Smart Justice
Rasul v. Bush
Reviewing a ruling that the federal courts are not entitled to hear a claim that detainees at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba are being held in violation of the Constitution and international law. DECIDED
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2004
National Security
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
Reviewing the President's authority to designate an American citizen an "enemy combatant" and detain him indefinitely in an American military brig without charges, trial, or private access to counsel. DECIDED
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2004
National Security
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
Reviewing the President's authority to designate an American citizen an "enemy combatant" and detain him indefinitely in an American military brig without charges, trial, or private access to counsel. DECIDED