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 San Diego & Imperial Counties Cases

9 San Diego & Imperial Counties Cases

two 3-tier white wedding cakes, one with white flowers on top
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, Ƶof Southern California, Ƶof Northern California, and Ƶof 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 Civil Rights Department V. Cathy's Creations D/b/a Tastries. Explore Case.
California
Apr 2024
two 3-tier white wedding cakes, one with white flowers on top

Religious Liberty

LGBTQ Rights

California Civil Rights Department v. Cathy's Creations d/b/a Tastries

On April 11, 2024, the ACLU, Ƶof Southern California, Ƶof Northern California, and Ƶof 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 Civil Rights Department V. Cathy's Creations D/b/a Tastries. 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.
Lopez-Venegas v. Johnson
California
Aug 2014

Immigrants' Rights

Lopez-Venegas v. Johnson

In June 2013, a class action lawsuit was filed by the Ƶon 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 Ƶon 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.
Hollingsworth v. Perry
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
Hollingsworth V. Perry. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2013
Hollingsworth v. Perry

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.
Hollingsworth V. Perry. Explore Case.
NASA
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
Nasa V. Nelson. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Nov 2012
NASA

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.
Nasa V. Nelson. Explore Case.
1
2