California
O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed
learn about our work in California
O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed
Free Speech
Status: Ongoing
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.
learn about our work in California
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.
Featured
U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 2022
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
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
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
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
All Southern California Cases
- Select Affiliate
- Northern California
- Southern California
- San Diego & Imperial Counties
29 Southern California Cases
California
Apr 2020
ROBLES V. WOLF
On March 31, 2020, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Foundation of Southern California and the ACLU’s National Prison Project filed Robles v. Wolf on behalf of immigrants detained at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center. The lawsuit seeks the release of detainees who, due to age or preexisting medical conditions, are highly vulnerable to serious illness and death in the event of a COVID-19 infection.
View case
California
Immigrants' Rights
ROBLES V. WOLF
On March 31, 2020, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Foundation of Southern California and the ACLU’s National Prison Project filed Robles v. Wolf on behalf of immigrants detained at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center. The lawsuit seeks the release of detainees who, due to age or preexisting medical conditions, are highly vulnerable to serious illness and death in the event of a COVID-19 infection.
Apr 2020
View case
California
Smart Justice
P.E.O.P.L.E. v Rackauckas
Jul 2019
Status: Ongoing
View case
California
Jul 2018
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.
Status: Closed (Settled)
View case
California
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.
Jul 2018
Status: Closed (Settled)
View case
California
Oct 2015
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.
View case
California
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.
Oct 2015
View case
California
Sep 2014
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
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