California

Featured

U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 2022
FBI v. Fazaga Plaintiffs

Privacy & Technology

+2 Ƶ

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 Ƶof Southern California, the Ƶ, the Council for American Islamic Relations, and the law firm of Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai.
Fbi V. Fazaga. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Aug 2023
O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed

Free Speech

O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed

The ACLU, the Ƶof Northern California, and the Ƶof 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.
O’connor-ratcliff V. Garnier And Lindke V. Freed. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Aug 2021
Border Asylum Line

Immigrants' Rights

Innovation Law Lab v. Wolf

The Ƶ, 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.
Innovation Law Lab V. Wolf. Explore Case.
California
Mar 2019
Protester holding "#Black Lives Matter" sign

Racial Justice

MediaJustice, et al. v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al.

On March 21, 2019, the Ƶ 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 Ƶand 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.
Mediajustice, Et Al. V. Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Et Al.. Explore Case.

All Northern California Cases

38 Northern California Cases

Cross v. SFPD
California
Oct 2019

Criminal Law Reform

Cross v. SFPD

Our Constitution promises all people, regardless of their race, equal protection under the laws. Accordingly, courts have long recognized that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause prohibits selective enforcement of criminal laws based on race. Yet law enforcement officers of the City of San Francisco have repeatedly violated that clause, singling out Black people for enforcement.
Explore case
Cross V. Sfpd. Explore Case.
California
Oct 2019
Cross v. SFPD

Criminal Law Reform

Cross v. SFPD

Our Constitution promises all people, regardless of their race, equal protection under the laws. Accordingly, courts have long recognized that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause prohibits selective enforcement of criminal laws based on race. Yet law enforcement officers of the City of San Francisco have repeatedly violated that clause, singling out Black people for enforcement.
Cross V. Sfpd. Explore Case.
EyeCode
California
Oct 2018

National Security

ƵV. DOJ – FOIA Lawsuit Seeking the Government’s Policy on Notifying Americans When It Spies on Them

In February 2017, the Ƶfiled a Freedom of Information Act request with the U.S. Department of Justice to find out more about the circumstances under which the government thinks it can spy on Americans without telling them. In June 2017, together with the Ƶof Northern California, we filed a lawsuit to enforce the request in the District Court for the Northern District of California.
Explore case
Aclu V. Doj – Foia Lawsuit Seeking The Government’s Policy On Notifying Americans When It Spies On Them. Explore Case.
California
Oct 2018
EyeCode

National Security

ƵV. DOJ – FOIA Lawsuit Seeking the Government’s Policy on Notifying Americans When It Spies on Them

In February 2017, the Ƶfiled a Freedom of Information Act request with the U.S. Department of Justice to find out more about the circumstances under which the government thinks it can spy on Americans without telling them. In June 2017, together with the Ƶof Northern California, we filed a lawsuit to enforce the request in the District Court for the Northern District of California.
Aclu V. Doj – Foia Lawsuit Seeking The Government’s Policy On Notifying Americans When It Spies On Them. Explore Case.
Sigma Beta XI v County of Riverside
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
Sigma Beta Xi V County Of Riverside. Explore Case.
California
Jul 2018
Sigma Beta XI v County of Riverside

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.
Sigma Beta Xi V County Of Riverside. Explore Case.
United States of America v. State of California
California
May 2018

Immigrants' Rights

United States of America v. State of California

In March 2017, the Trump administration filed a lawsuit challenging California’s sanctuary laws. The Ƶ and co-counsel have moved to intervene in the case to defend the California Values Act, which limits California’s participation in the deportation dragnet.
Explore case
United States Of America V. State Of California. Explore Case.
California
May 2018
United States of America v. State of California

Immigrants' Rights

United States of America v. State of California

In March 2017, the Trump administration filed a lawsuit challenging California’s sanctuary laws. The Ƶ and co-counsel have moved to intervene in the case to defend the California Values Act, which limits California’s participation in the deportation dragnet.
United States Of America V. State Of California. Explore Case.
La Follette v. Padilla
California
Aug 2017

Voting Rights

La Follette v. Padilla

The Ƶis suing California for invalidating the vote-by-mail ballots of tens of thousands of voters without warning. At issue is a state law that allows election officials — who have no handwriting-analysis expertise — to reject a vote-by-mail ballot without giving notice to the voter, if they think the signature on the ballot envelope does not match the one they have in the voter’s registration file. Nothing in the law tells voters they have to sign their ballot envelopes in any particular way; and voters are not informed that their ballots have been thrown out.
Explore case
La Follette V. Padilla. Explore Case.
California
Aug 2017
La Follette v. Padilla

Voting Rights

La Follette v. Padilla

The Ƶis suing California for invalidating the vote-by-mail ballots of tens of thousands of voters without warning. At issue is a state law that allows election officials — who have no handwriting-analysis expertise — to reject a vote-by-mail ballot without giving notice to the voter, if they think the signature on the ballot envelope does not match the one they have in the voter’s registration file. Nothing in the law tells voters they have to sign their ballot envelopes in any particular way; and voters are not informed that their ballots have been thrown out.
La Follette V. Padilla. Explore Case.
23
4
56...