California
O鈥機onnor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed
The 红杏视频, the 红杏视频 of Northern California, and the 红杏视频 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鈥機onnor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Featured
U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 2022

Privacy & Technology
+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
Aug 2023

Free Speech
O鈥機onnor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed
The 红杏视频, the 红杏视频 of Northern California, and the 红杏视频 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鈥機onnor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed.
U.S. Supreme Court
Aug 2021

Immigrants' Rights
Innovation Law Lab v. Wolf
The 红杏视频, Southern Poverty Law Center, and Center for Gender & Refugee Studies filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Trump administration鈥檚 new policy forcing asylum seekers to return to Mexico and remain there while their cases are considered.
California
Mar 2019

Racial Justice
MediaJustice, et al. v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al.
On March 21, 2019, the 红杏视频 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 红杏视频 and MediaJustice鈥檚 right to information about a 2017 FBI Intelligence Assessment that asserts, without evidence, that a group of so-called 鈥淏lack Identity Extremists鈥 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.
All Northern California Cases
- Select Affiliate
- Northern California
- Southern California
- San Diego & Imperial Counties
34 Northern California Cases

California
Jul 2014
National Security
Gill v. DOJ 鈥 Challenge to Government's Suspicious Activity Reporting Program
The 红杏视频 of California, the 红杏视频, Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus, and the law firm Bingham McCutchen have filed a lawsuit challenging the federal government's Suspicious Activity Reporting program 鈥 a vast expansion of the federal government's domestic intelligence network. The SAR program supposedly facilitates the collection and sharing of information about activity that appears "suspicious," but in practice it targets First Amendment-protected activity, encourages racial and religious profiling, and violates federal law. The plaintiffs are five U.S. citizens whose information has been entered into counterterrorism databases for engaging in lawful conduct, and who have been subject to unwarranted law enforcement and scrutiny. The lawsuit was filed in July 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In March 2017, the District Court granted the government鈥檚 motion for summary judgment, upholding the SAR program鈥檚 standard for data collection. We are appealing that ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Explore case
California
Jul 2014

National Security
Gill v. DOJ 鈥 Challenge to Government's Suspicious Activity Reporting Program
The 红杏视频 of California, the 红杏视频, Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus, and the law firm Bingham McCutchen have filed a lawsuit challenging the federal government's Suspicious Activity Reporting program 鈥 a vast expansion of the federal government's domestic intelligence network. The SAR program supposedly facilitates the collection and sharing of information about activity that appears "suspicious," but in practice it targets First Amendment-protected activity, encourages racial and religious profiling, and violates federal law. The plaintiffs are five U.S. citizens whose information has been entered into counterterrorism databases for engaging in lawful conduct, and who have been subject to unwarranted law enforcement and scrutiny. The lawsuit was filed in July 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In March 2017, the District Court granted the government鈥檚 motion for summary judgment, upholding the SAR program鈥檚 standard for data collection. We are appealing that ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2013
LGBTQ Rights
Hollingsworth v. Perry
Whether California鈥檚 Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to define marriage as solely between a man and a woman, violates equal protection.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2013

LGBTQ Rights
Hollingsworth v. Perry
Whether California鈥檚 Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to define marriage as solely between a man and a woman, violates equal protection.

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
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.

U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2011
Women's Rights
Wal-Mart v. Dukes
Whether this sex discrimination case against Wal-Mart should be allowed to proceed as a class action.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2011

Women's Rights
Wal-Mart v. Dukes
Whether this sex discrimination case against Wal-Mart should be allowed to proceed as a class action.

U.S. Supreme Court
May 2011
Smart Justice
Prisoners' Rights
Brown v. Plata
Whether a federal court appropriately exercised its authority by ordering the State of California to reduce the size of its prison population, which was more than double the system’s intended capacity, after dozens of remedial orders had failed for more than a decade to ensure that California prisoners received constitutionally adequate medical and mental health care.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
May 2011

Smart Justice
Prisoners' Rights
Brown v. Plata
Whether a federal court appropriately exercised its authority by ordering the State of California to reduce the size of its prison population, which was more than double the system’s intended capacity, after dozens of remedial orders had failed for more than a decade to ensure that California prisoners received constitutionally adequate medical and mental health care.