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 Southern California Cases
- Select Affiliate
- Northern California
- Southern California
- San Diego & Imperial Counties
33 Southern California Cases

California
Jul 2014
National Security
Muhanna v. USCIS - Challenge to Government Program Denying Citizenship and Green Cards Based on Unfounded 'National Security Concerns'
The 红杏视频 of Southern California and the 红杏视频, along with the Jones Day and Stacy Tolchin law firms, filed a lawsuit in July 2014 challenging a federal government program used to deny or delay thousands of law-abiding people - many of them from Muslim-majority countries - citizenship, green cards, and visas on counterterrorism grounds. The program is illegal and unconstitutional, was adopted without any congressional approval or public comment, and violates the Fifth Amendment鈥檚 guarantee of due process, as the aspiring Americans whose applications are denied under the program are not told why or given a meaningful opportunity to clear their names. In response to the lawsuit, the government promptly acted upon the applications of all of the plaintiffs, approving three of them, and the case was resolved.
Explore case
California
Jul 2014

National Security
Muhanna v. USCIS - Challenge to Government Program Denying Citizenship and Green Cards Based on Unfounded 'National Security Concerns'
The 红杏视频 of Southern California and the 红杏视频, along with the Jones Day and Stacy Tolchin law firms, filed a lawsuit in July 2014 challenging a federal government program used to deny or delay thousands of law-abiding people - many of them from Muslim-majority countries - citizenship, green cards, and visas on counterterrorism grounds. The program is illegal and unconstitutional, was adopted without any congressional approval or public comment, and violates the Fifth Amendment鈥檚 guarantee of due process, as the aspiring Americans whose applications are denied under the program are not told why or given a meaningful opportunity to clear their names. In response to the lawsuit, the government promptly acted upon the applications of all of the plaintiffs, approving three of them, and the case was resolved.

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
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.

U.S. Supreme Court
Mar 2011
Smart Justice
+2 Issues
Casey A., et al. v. Robles, et al.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Mar 2011

Smart Justice
+2 Issues