California
O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed
The ACLU, the ACLU of Northern California, and the ACLU 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’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Visit ACLU of Southern California
Visit ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties
Visit ACLU of Northern California
Featured
U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 2022
![FBI v. Fazaga Plaintiffs](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/Fazaga_scotus-1-Blog-600x400.jpg)
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 ACLU of Southern California, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Council for American Islamic Relations, and the law firm of Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai.
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Aug 2023
![O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed](https://www.aclu.dev/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed
The ACLU, the ACLU of Northern California, and the ACLU 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’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed.
Status: Ongoing
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Aug 2021
![Border Asylum Line](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2019/09/web19-asylumlinebarbedwire-1160x768-600x397.jpg)
Innovation Law Lab v. Wolf
The American Civil Liberties Union, 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.
Status: Ongoing
View case
California
Mar 2019
![Protester holding "#Black Lives Matter" sign](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/web19-blm-rally-1160x864-600x447.jpg)
MediaJustice, et al. v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al.
On March 21, 2019, the American Civil Liberties Union 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 ACLU and 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.
Status: Ongoing
View case
Stay informed about our latest work in the courts.
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU's privacy statement.
All Southern California Cases
- Select Affiliate
- Northern California
- Southern California
- San Diego & Imperial Counties
30 Southern California Cases
California
Sep 2014
![Gonzalez v. ICE](https://www.aclu.dev/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Gonzalez v. ICE
Gonzalez v. ICE is a proposed class action lawsuit against Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"), brought by two U.S. citizens—Gerardo Gonzalez and Simon Chinivizyan—who were subjected to ICE detainers while in custody in Los Angeles County. The lawsuit challenges ICE's practice of lodging detainers—and thereby causing people's extended detention—without a probable cause determination, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
View case
![Gonzalez v. ICE](https://www.aclu.dev/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
California
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—Gerardo Gonzalez and Simon Chinivizyan—who were subjected to ICE detainers while in custody in Los Angeles County. The lawsuit challenges ICE's practice of lodging detainers—and thereby causing people's extended detention—without a probable cause determination, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Sep 2014
View case
California
Aug 2014
![Lopez-Venegas v. Johnson](https://www.aclu.dev/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Lopez-Venegas v. Johnson
In June 2013, a class action lawsuit was filed by the ACLU 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.
View case
![Lopez-Venegas v. Johnson](https://www.aclu.dev/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
California
Immigrants' Rights
Lopez-Venegas v. Johnson
In June 2013, a class action lawsuit was filed by the ACLU 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.
Aug 2014
View case
California
Jul 2014
![Sign that reads "NO ENTRY"](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2019/09/blog-noentrysign-500x280.png)
Muhanna v. USCIS - Challenge to Government Program Denying Citizenship and Green Cards Based on Unfounded 'National Security Concerns'
The ACLU 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’s 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.
Status: Closed (Voluntarily Dismissed)
View case
![Sign that reads "NO ENTRY"](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2019/09/blog-noentrysign-500x280.png)
California
National Security
Muhanna v. USCIS - Challenge to Government Program Denying Citizenship and Green Cards Based on Unfounded 'National Security Concerns'
The ACLU 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’s 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.
Jul 2014
Status: Closed (Voluntarily Dismissed)
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2013
![Hollingsworth v. Perry](https://www.aclu.dev/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
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.
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
![Hollingsworth v. Perry](https://www.aclu.dev/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
U.S. Supreme Court
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.
Jun 2013
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Nov 2012
![NASA](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/WEB15-Images-NASA-1160x864-600x447.jpg)
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.
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
![NASA](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/WEB15-Images-NASA-1160x864-600x447.jpg)
U.S. Supreme Court
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.
Nov 2012
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case