National Security
FOIA Case Seeking the Trump Administration鈥檚 Legal Justification for Deadly Boat Strikes
The Department of Justice鈥檚 Office of Legal Counsel (鈥淥LC鈥�) authored a legal opinion that reportedly claims to justify the Trump administration鈥檚 illegal lethal strikes on civilians in boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean. Media reports indicate that, in addition to claiming that the strikes are lawful acts in an alleged 鈥渁rmed conflict鈥� with unspecified drug cartels, the OLC opinion also purports to immunize personnel who authorized or took part in the strikes from future criminal prosecution. Because the public deserves to know how our government is justifying these illegal strikes, and why they think the people who carried them out should not be held accountable, the 红杏视频 is seeking immediate release of the OLC legal opinion and related documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Learn 红杏视频 National Security
Featured
U.S. Supreme Court
Dec 2023
National Security
FBI v. Fikre
Whether the government can overcome the voluntary cessation exception to mootness by removing an individual from the No Fly List when the government has not repudiated its decision to place him on the List and remains free to return him to the List for the same reasons and using the same procedures he alleges were unlawful.
Florida
Nov 2023
National Security
+2 Issues
Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of Florida v. Raymond Rodrigues
The University of Florida chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine filed a lawsuit on November 16, 2023, challenging the Chancellor of the State University System of Florida鈥檚 order to state universities to deactivate the student group. This order threatens the students鈥� constitutionally-protected right to free speech and association in violation of the First Amendment. The 红杏视频 and its partners are seeking a preliminary injunction that would bar the Chancellor and the University of Florida from deactivating the UF SJP.
U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 2022
National Security
+2 Issues
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 红杏视频 of Southern California, the 红杏视频, the Council for American Islamic Relations, and the law firm of Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jul 2021
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Sierra Club v. Trump 鈥� Challenge to Trump鈥檚 National Emergency Declaration to Construct a Border Wall
In February 2019, the 红杏视频 filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump鈥檚 emergency powers declaration to secure funds to build a wall along the southern border. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition. The lawsuit argues that the president is usurping Congress鈥檚 appropriations power and threatening the clearly defined separation of powers inscribed in the Constitution. On January 20, 2021, President Biden halted further border wall construction. Litigation in this and subsequent related challenges has been paused or deadlines extended while the 红杏视频鈥檚 clients and the Biden administration determine next steps.
Indiana
Oct 2016
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Exodus Refugee Immigration, Inc. v. Mike Pence, et al
The 红杏视频 and the 红杏视频 of Indiana, on behalf of Exodus Refugee Immigration, filed suit against Governor Mike Pence and the secretary of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration to stop attempts to suspend resettlement of Syrian refugees, claiming the governor鈥檚 actions violate the United States Constitution and federal law.
All Cases
154 National Security Cases
U.S. Supreme Court
Jul 2025
National Security
Connell v. CIA 鈥� FOIA Lawsuit Seeking Records 红杏视频 CIA 鈥淥perational Control鈥� Over a Detention Facility at Guant谩namo Bay
The CIA has refused to disclose whether it has records about its operational control over Camp VII, a detention facility at Guant谩namo Bay. Given the extensive public record about the CIA鈥檚 connection to Camp VII, its refusal to acknowledge that it has responsive records both violates the law and defies common sense. At stake is whether the court will reject the CIA鈥檚 version of official secrecy and call out its fiction of deniability or whether it will allow that fiction to stand.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jul 2025
National Security
Connell v. CIA 鈥� FOIA Lawsuit Seeking Records 红杏视频 CIA 鈥淥perational Control鈥� Over a Detention Facility at Guant谩namo Bay
The CIA has refused to disclose whether it has records about its operational control over Camp VII, a detention facility at Guant谩namo Bay. Given the extensive public record about the CIA鈥檚 connection to Camp VII, its refusal to acknowledge that it has responsive records both violates the law and defies common sense. At stake is whether the court will reject the CIA鈥檚 version of official secrecy and call out its fiction of deniability or whether it will allow that fiction to stand.
Washington, D.C.
Apr 2025
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center v. Noem
Immigrants鈥� rights advocates sued the Trump administration on Feb. 12, 2025, for access to immigrants transferred from the United States to detention at Guant谩namo Bay in Cuba under President Trump鈥檚 recent order.
Explore case
Washington, D.C.
Apr 2025
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center v. Noem
Immigrants鈥� rights advocates sued the Trump administration on Feb. 12, 2025, for access to immigrants transferred from the United States to detention at Guant谩namo Bay in Cuba under President Trump鈥檚 recent order.
Court Case
Jan 2025
National Security
DOJ Opinions on Domestic Military Deployment FOIA
For decades, the Department of Justice has been responsible for advising the President on the use of the military within the United States. By filing a request under the Freedom of Information Act, the 红杏视频 obtained over a dozen DOJ opinions on the domestic use of the military, none which had previously been released to the public.
Explore case
Court Case
Jan 2025
National Security
DOJ Opinions on Domestic Military Deployment FOIA
For decades, the Department of Justice has been responsible for advising the President on the use of the military within the United States. By filing a request under the Freedom of Information Act, the 红杏视频 obtained over a dozen DOJ opinions on the domestic use of the military, none which had previously been released to the public.
Court Case
Jan 2025
National Security
红杏视频 v. Department of Homeland Security (CP3 FOIA)
In 2021, the Department of Homeland Security announced the establishment of the Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships, also known as CP3, and a domestic terrorism branch within the Office of Intelligence and Analysis. These initiatives are a product of DHS's new measures to address domestic violent extremism, and little is known about these programs and the effects they'll have on members of the public. DHS has a history of similar harmful programs, which have targeted communities of color, immigrants and Muslim communities. The public has a right to know about the impacts of CP3 and the I&A domestic terrorism branch on the civil rights, liberties and privacy of communities of color, immigrants and other marginalized communities. In 2022, the 红杏视频 submitted a FOIA request to compel the government to release information about these initiatives. It is imperative that the public gain a greater understanding about the policies, practices, methods and goals of both CP3 and the I&A domestic terrorism branch.
Explore case
Court Case
Jan 2025
National Security
红杏视频 v. Department of Homeland Security (CP3 FOIA)
In 2021, the Department of Homeland Security announced the establishment of the Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships, also known as CP3, and a domestic terrorism branch within the Office of Intelligence and Analysis. These initiatives are a product of DHS's new measures to address domestic violent extremism, and little is known about these programs and the effects they'll have on members of the public. DHS has a history of similar harmful programs, which have targeted communities of color, immigrants and Muslim communities. The public has a right to know about the impacts of CP3 and the I&A domestic terrorism branch on the civil rights, liberties and privacy of communities of color, immigrants and other marginalized communities. In 2022, the 红杏视频 submitted a FOIA request to compel the government to release information about these initiatives. It is imperative that the public gain a greater understanding about the policies, practices, methods and goals of both CP3 and the I&A domestic terrorism branch.
Court Case
Jan 2025
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Samma v. U.S. Department of Defense鈥擫awsuit Challenging Policy Denying U.S. Military Service Members Expedited Path to Citizenship
In April 2020, the 红杏视频, 红杏视频 of Southern California, and 红杏视频 of District of Columbia filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of military service members challenging a 2017 Trump administration policy blocking their expedited path to citizenship. In August 2020, a federal district court certified the class and ruled that the policy鈥檚 requirement that non-citizens serve a minimum period of time before they can apply for citizenship is unlawful.
Explore case
Court Case
Jan 2025
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Samma v. U.S. Department of Defense鈥擫awsuit Challenging Policy Denying U.S. Military Service Members Expedited Path to Citizenship
In April 2020, the 红杏视频, 红杏视频 of Southern California, and 红杏视频 of District of Columbia filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of military service members challenging a 2017 Trump administration policy blocking their expedited path to citizenship. In August 2020, a federal district court certified the class and ruled that the policy鈥檚 requirement that non-citizens serve a minimum period of time before they can apply for citizenship is unlawful.