Privacy & Technology
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.
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View Case
Learn 红杏视频 Privacy & Technology
Featured
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2018
Privacy & Technology
Carpenter v. United States
The Supreme Court ruled that the government needs a warrant to access a person鈥檚 cellphone location history. The court found in a 5 to 4 decision that obtaining such information is a search under the Fourth Amendment and that a warrant from a judge based on probable cause is required.
Court Case
Dec 2016
Privacy & Technology
Sarkar v. Doe - PubPeer Subpoena Challenge
The 红杏视频 filed a motion in Michigan state court challenging the constitutionality of a subpoena issued to the website PubPeer demanding that it turn over the identities of anonymous commenters. In March 2015, the trial judge ruled that PubPeer had to unmask one 鈥� but only one 鈥� of the commenters. Both PubPeer and the researcher appealed, and the ruling was upheld in December 2016.
All Cases
74 Privacy & Technology Cases
U.S. Supreme Court
May 2023
Privacy & Technology
Free Speech
Google v. Gonzalez LLC
The Supreme Court will decide whether social media and other platforms are liable for their users鈥� posts if they make recommendations or suggestions about what content to access, or whether Section 230 affords them immunity from such claims.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
May 2023
Privacy & Technology
Free Speech
Google v. Gonzalez LLC
The Supreme Court will decide whether social media and other platforms are liable for their users鈥� posts if they make recommendations or suggestions about what content to access, or whether Section 230 affords them immunity from such claims.
U.S. Supreme Court
May 2023
Privacy & Technology
Polselli v. Internal Revenue Service
This case concerns the scope of the IRS鈥檚 obligation under a federal law to provide notice to individuals that it is seeking their records from a third party, such as a bank, accountant, or lawyer.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
May 2023
Privacy & Technology
Polselli v. Internal Revenue Service
This case concerns the scope of the IRS鈥檚 obligation under a federal law to provide notice to individuals that it is seeking their records from a third party, such as a bank, accountant, or lawyer.
Court Case
May 2023
Privacy & Technology
National Security
The Warrant Clause in the Digital Age
The information generated by today鈥檚 digital devices and online services reveals private matters far beyond what one could learn from physical analogs. In a series of legal filings and a white paper, available below, the 红杏视频 has argued that to keep apace with technological developments and adequately protect our privacy, the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement must be interpreted robustly. Seizures and searches of digital data must be cabined to probable cause, limited to specific categories of information relevant to the investigation, and closely overseen by a neutral magistrate.
Explore case
Court Case
May 2023
Privacy & Technology
National Security
The Warrant Clause in the Digital Age
The information generated by today鈥檚 digital devices and online services reveals private matters far beyond what one could learn from physical analogs. In a series of legal filings and a white paper, available below, the 红杏视频 has argued that to keep apace with technological developments and adequately protect our privacy, the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement must be interpreted robustly. Seizures and searches of digital data must be cabined to probable cause, limited to specific categories of information relevant to the investigation, and closely overseen by a neutral magistrate.
Court Case
Apr 2023
Privacy & Technology
National Security
红杏视频 v. FBI - FOIA Case for FBI Records Related to Nondisclosure Agreements for Cell Site Simulators
In 2021, the 红杏视频 submitted a FOIA request to the FBI to determine whether the FBI has continued to require state and local law enforcement agencies to enter into nondisclosure agreements before purchasing or using cell site simulators. After appealing and suing, the 红杏视频 finally obtained responsive records confirming that the FBI has continued to impose nondisclosure agreements on law enforcement agencies seeking to use the FBI鈥檚 cell site simulators.
Explore case
Court Case
Apr 2023
Privacy & Technology
National Security
红杏视频 v. FBI - FOIA Case for FBI Records Related to Nondisclosure Agreements for Cell Site Simulators
In 2021, the 红杏视频 submitted a FOIA request to the FBI to determine whether the FBI has continued to require state and local law enforcement agencies to enter into nondisclosure agreements before purchasing or using cell site simulators. After appealing and suing, the 红杏视频 finally obtained responsive records confirming that the FBI has continued to impose nondisclosure agreements on law enforcement agencies seeking to use the FBI鈥檚 cell site simulators.
U.S. Supreme Court
Feb 2023
Privacy & Technology
+2 Issues
Twitter, Inc., v. Taamneh
The Supreme Court will decide whether a social media or other platform can be liable for 鈥渁iding and abetting鈥� a terrorist attack merely because it failed to adequately block content valorizing terrorism, even where the platform has policies barring terrorist content.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Feb 2023
Privacy & Technology
+2 Issues
Twitter, Inc., v. Taamneh
The Supreme Court will decide whether a social media or other platform can be liable for 鈥渁iding and abetting鈥� a terrorist attack merely because it failed to adequately block content valorizing terrorism, even where the platform has policies barring terrorist content.