California

Featured

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

Privacy & Technology

+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.
Fbi V. Fazaga. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Aug 2023
O鈥機onnor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed

Free Speech

O鈥機onnor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed

The ACLU, the 桃子视频of Northern California, and the 桃子视频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鈥機onnor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed.
O鈥檆onnor-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 桃子视频, Southern Poverty Law Center, and Center for Gender & Refugee Studies filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Trump administration鈥檚 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 桃子视频 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 桃子视频and MediaJustice鈥檚 right to information about a 2017 FBI Intelligence Assessment that asserts, without evidence, that a group of so-called 鈥淏lack Identity Extremists鈥 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 Southern California Cases

36 Southern California Cases

Rodriguez, et al. v. Robbins, et al.
California
Oct 2015

Immigrants' Rights

Rodriguez, et al. v. Robbins, et al.

On October 29, 2015, a federal appeals court affirmed and expanded its prior ruling that immigrants in prolonged detention receive a bond hearing. In Rodriguez v. Robbins, a class-action lawsuit , the court upheld an order requiring bond hearings for detainees locked up six months or longer while they fight their deportation cases. The ruling stands to benefit thousands of immigration detainees across the Ninth Circuit, where an estimated 25% of immigrant detainees are held every year.
Explore case
Rodriguez, Et Al. V. Robbins, Et Al.. Explore Case.
California
Oct 2015
Rodriguez, et al. v. Robbins, et al.

Immigrants' Rights

Rodriguez, et al. v. Robbins, et al.

On October 29, 2015, a federal appeals court affirmed and expanded its prior ruling that immigrants in prolonged detention receive a bond hearing. In Rodriguez v. Robbins, a class-action lawsuit , the court upheld an order requiring bond hearings for detainees locked up six months or longer while they fight their deportation cases. The ruling stands to benefit thousands of immigration detainees across the Ninth Circuit, where an estimated 25% of immigrant detainees are held every year.
Rodriguez, Et Al. V. Robbins, Et Al.. Explore Case.
Gonzalez v. ICE
California
Sep 2014

Immigrants' Rights

Gonzalez v. ICE

Gonzalez v. ICE is a proposed class action lawsuit against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), brought by two U.S. citizens鈥擥erardo Gonzalez and Simon Chinivizyan鈥攚ho were subjected to ICE detainers while in custody in Los Angeles County. The lawsuit challenges ICE's practice of lodging detainers鈥攁nd thereby causing people's extended detention鈥攚ithout a probable cause determination, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. 
Explore case
Gonzalez V. Ice. Explore Case.
California
Sep 2014
Gonzalez v. ICE

Immigrants' Rights

Gonzalez v. ICE

Gonzalez v. ICE is a proposed class action lawsuit against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), brought by two U.S. citizens鈥擥erardo Gonzalez and Simon Chinivizyan鈥攚ho were subjected to ICE detainers while in custody in Los Angeles County. The lawsuit challenges ICE's practice of lodging detainers鈥攁nd thereby causing people's extended detention鈥攚ithout a probable cause determination, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. 
Gonzalez V. Ice. Explore Case.
Lopez-Venegas v. Johnson
California
Aug 2014

Immigrants' Rights

Lopez-Venegas v. Johnson

In June 2013, a class action lawsuit was filed by the 桃子视频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
Lopez-venegas V. Johnson. Explore Case.
California
Aug 2014
Lopez-Venegas v. Johnson

Immigrants' Rights

Lopez-Venegas v. Johnson

In June 2013, a class action lawsuit was filed by the 桃子视频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.
Lopez-venegas V. Johnson. Explore Case.
Sign that reads "NO ENTRY"
California
Jul 2014

National Security

Muhanna v. USCIS - Challenge to Government Program Denying Citizenship and Green Cards Based on Unfounded 'National Security Concerns'

The 桃子视频of Southern California and the ACLU, along with the Jones Day and Stacy Tolchin law firms, filed a lawsuit in July 2014 challenging a federal government program used to deny or delay thousands of law-abiding people - many of them from Muslim-majority countries - citizenship, green cards, and visas on counterterrorism grounds. The program is illegal and unconstitutional, was adopted without any congressional approval or public comment, and violates the Fifth Amendment鈥檚 guarantee of due process, as the aspiring Americans whose applications are denied under the program are not told why or given a meaningful opportunity to clear their names. In response to the lawsuit, the government promptly acted upon the applications of all of the plaintiffs, approving three of them, and the case was resolved.
Explore case
Muhanna V. Uscis - Challenge To Government Program Denying Citizenship And Green Cards Based On Unfounded 'national Security Concerns'. Explore Case.
California
Jul 2014
Sign that reads "NO ENTRY"

National Security

Muhanna v. USCIS - Challenge to Government Program Denying Citizenship and Green Cards Based on Unfounded 'National Security Concerns'

The 桃子视频of Southern California and the ACLU, along with the Jones Day and Stacy Tolchin law firms, filed a lawsuit in July 2014 challenging a federal government program used to deny or delay thousands of law-abiding people - many of them from Muslim-majority countries - citizenship, green cards, and visas on counterterrorism grounds. The program is illegal and unconstitutional, was adopted without any congressional approval or public comment, and violates the Fifth Amendment鈥檚 guarantee of due process, as the aspiring Americans whose applications are denied under the program are not told why or given a meaningful opportunity to clear their names. In response to the lawsuit, the government promptly acted upon the applications of all of the plaintiffs, approving three of them, and the case was resolved.
Muhanna V. Uscis - Challenge To Government Program Denying Citizenship And Green Cards Based On Unfounded 'national Security Concerns'. Explore Case.
Hollingsworth v. Perry
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2013

LGBTQ Rights

Hollingsworth v. Perry

Whether California鈥檚 Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to define marriage as solely between a man and a woman, violates equal protection.
Explore case
Hollingsworth V. Perry. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2013
Hollingsworth v. Perry

LGBTQ Rights

Hollingsworth v. Perry

Whether California鈥檚 Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to define marriage as solely between a man and a woman, violates equal protection.
Hollingsworth V. Perry. Explore Case.
34
5
67...