California
O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed
The Ƶ, the Ƶ of Northern California, and the Ƶ 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
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’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 Ƶ of Southern California, the Ƶ, the Council for American Islamic Relations, and the law firm of Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai.
U.S. Supreme Court
Aug 2023

Free Speech
O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed
The Ƶ, the Ƶ of Northern California, and the Ƶ 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.
U.S. Supreme Court
Aug 2021

Immigrants' Rights
Innovation Law Lab v. Wolf
The Ƶ, 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.
California
Mar 2019

Racial Justice
MediaJustice, et al. v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al.
On March 21, 2019, the Ƶ 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 Ƶ 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.
All Southern California Cases
- Select Affiliate
- Northern California
- Southern California
- San Diego & Imperial Counties
33 Southern California Cases

California
Jul 2019
Smart Justice
P.E.O.P.L.E. v Rackauckas
Explore case
California
Jul 2019

Smart Justice
P.E.O.P.L.E. v Rackauckas

California
Jul 2018
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.
Explore case
California
Jul 2018

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.

California
Oct 2015
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.
Explore case
California
Oct 2015

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.

California
Sep 2014
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.
Explore case
California
Sep 2014

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.

California
Aug 2014
Immigrants' Rights
Lopez-Venegas v. Johnson
In June 2013, a class action lawsuit was filed by the Ƶ 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.
Explore case
California
Aug 2014

Immigrants' Rights
Lopez-Venegas v. Johnson
In June 2013, a class action lawsuit was filed by the Ƶ 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.