Active Cases

Uelian de Abadia-Peixoto, et al. vs. United States Department of Homeland Security, et al. (2011)
The ACLU-NC, the LCCR, and Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati filed a class action suit against the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement Agency on behalf of adult immigration detainees, all of whom appear in immigration court shackled at the wrists, waist, and ankles, regardless of their history or capacity for disruption.


Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County et al. v. County of Sonoma et al. (2011)
The ACLU-NC filed a lawsuit in September 2008 charging that the Sonoma County Sheriff's Department and the U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have been collaborating beyond the law to target, arrest, and detain Latino residents of Sonoma County. For three years sheriff deputies and ICE agents have stopped and searched people who appear to be Latino, interrogated them about their immigration status, and detained them in the county jail without lawful authority. The lawsuit charges that the actions by the local sheriff and ICE violated constitutional guarantees of due process, equal protection, and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, and that the Sheriff's Department acted beyond its authority in enforcing federal immigration law.

Benjamin Brown, et al., v. Shasta Union High School District, et al. (2011)
Join the math team, take a drug test. That was the rule at the Shasta Union High School District, which enacted a policy requiring students to submit to random drug testing in order to participate in any school-sponsored activities, including choir, the science bowl, and the mock trial team. Mandatory suspicionless school drug testing, an approach promoted with fervor by the Bush Administration, violates students' right to privacy.

ACLU and SF Bay Guardian v. Food and Drug Administration (2011)
On January 4, 2011, The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California (ACLU-NC) and The San Francisco Bay Guardian (The Guardian) submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the FDA seeking records related to the federal government’s role in assisting – or failing to oversee – efforts by states to acquire controlled substances from outside the United States to carry out executions. While the FDA has provided some responsive documents, the FDA has failed to produce documents that would shed light on the agency’s shifting positions, and heavily redacted many of the documents produced to date.  

Harris v. LADA (2011)
The office of District Attorney Steve Cooley has failed to disclose public documents on the costs of prosecuting Harvard Law School. The lawsuit is for public records on expenses related capital cases, according to a lawsuit filed today by the ACLU on behalf of the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice (CHHIRJ) at to homicide cases, and discretionary spending generally, by the D.A. of California's most populous – and murderous – county.

ACLU and SF Bay Guardian v. Drug Enforcement Administration (2011)
The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California (ACLU-NC) and The San Francisco Bay Guardian (The Guardian) filed a preliminary injunction motion on April 28, asking the court to order the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to disclose records regarding the worldwide scramble for execution drugs by state prison officials. The ACLU-NC and The Guardian filed a federal lawsuit on Friday, April 22, 2011, to enforce a request for records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which the DEA had ignored for nearly four months. The suit was filed after Arizona and Nebraska set execution dates intending to use imported drugs of questionable legality and quality.

ACLU, Asian Law Caucus, SF Bay Guardian v. FBI (2011)
Following reports of anxiety and fear over FBI surveillance tactics in Muslim communities, the ACLU of Northern California joined with the Asian Law Caucus and the San Francisco Bay Guardian in 2010 to file a Freedom of Information Act request in order to understand the scope of the FBI's activities, including the infiltration of Muslim communities and mosques through the use of informants. The ACLU and our partners are concerned that the FBI's tactics have a chilling effect on the right to worship freely, and that the use of race-based criteria for targeting purposes invites unconstitutional racial profiling by law enforcement.

ACLU v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (2011)
The ACLU-NC filed a suit to demand records from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) about its mysterious acquisition of sodium thiopental, a controlled substance used as part of California's lethal injection protocol for executing death row inmates.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger (2010)
On July 8, 2009, ACLU, Lambda Legal, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights — representing LGBT community organizations Our Family Coalition, Lavender Seniors of the East Bay, and PFLAG — filed a motion to intervene in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, which eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry. The motion to intervene was denied on August 19, 2009.

Latif v. Holder (2010)
The ACLU and its affiliates in Oregon, Southern California, Northern California, and New Mexico have filed a legal challenge on behalf of ten U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents who cannot fly to or from the United States or over U.S. airspace because they are on the "No Fly List"—a component of the government's watch list system. None of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, including a disabled veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps, a U.S. Army veteran, and a U.S. Airforce veteran, have been told why they are on the list or given a meaningful chance to clear their names. Yet, they have been prevented from visiting relatives, accessing employment and educational opportunities, and—for those stranded abroad—returning home to their families, jobs, and needed medical care in the United States.

Haskell v. Brown (2010)
ACLU-NC filed a lawsuit in federal court on Oct. 7, 2009 seeking to stop California's policy of mandating that DNA is collected from anyone arrested for a felony, whether or not they are ever charged or convicted. The policy is a result of Proposition 69, which was enacted by voters in 2004 and went into effect on Jan. 1, 2009.


People v. Gallego (2010)
Should the police be able to follow you around and collect and analyze your DNA from something you discard, without a warrant or even a reason to believe you have committed a crime? Many police departments throughout the United States believe they have the authority to do just that. In this amicus brief, we argue that analyzing a person's DNA under these circumstances implicates the values protected by the Fourth Amendment and therefore that the Constitution limits the authority of the police to engage in such tactics.

Darensburg v. MTC (2010)
On November 23, 2009, the ACLU-NC and civil rights allies filed an amicus brief in Darensburg v. Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Plaintiffs argued that MTC, the planning body for all twenty-six independent transit operators in the Bay Area, consistently under-funded AC Transit, a bus line with high minority ridership, in comparison to other transit systems like BART, with lower minority ridership.

Associated General Contractors of America v. California Department of Transportation (2009)
On September 14, 2009 ACLU-NC and civil rights allies filed a motion to intervene in Associated General Contractors of America v. California Department of Transportation. The lawsuit, currently pending in U.S. District Court in Sacramento, was brought by the Pacific Legal Foundation and seeks to dismantle support Caltrans' Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program . DBE aims to give minority and women-owned businesses equal opportunity to compete for federal contracts. The ACLU-NC motion to intervene was filed on behalf of small businesses led by women and people of color who support DBE program and oppose the lawsuit.


People of the State of California vs. Norteño (2009)
On June 29, 2009 ACLU-NC submitted an amicus brief in The People of the State of California vs. Norteño, urging the Solano County Superior Court to limit the overly broad scope of a gang injunction proposed by the City of Fairfield. The ACLU-NC brief expressed concerns with several aspects of the injunction, including the potential for racial profiling and the ability of the police to serve the injunction on an individual without presenting clear and convincing evidence of gang membership and without court approval. On July 24, 2009, a preliminary injunction was granted, and a number of ACLU-NC's recommendations were adopted.

AFL-CIO et al. v. Chertoff et al. (2009)
On August 28, 2007, the AFL-CIO, San Francisco Labor Council, San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council, and the Central Labor Council for Alameda County filed suit to enjoin defendant officials of the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), Immigration Customs and Enforcement, and the Social Security Administration ("SSA") from implementing a DHS regulation promulgated August 15, 2007. The rule created a new standard for employer liability based on inaction in response to a Social Security "no-match" letter, which was formerly treated merely as notice of a clerical or other error in the employee's, employer's or SSA's records. The new rule's suggestion that employers can and should terminate the employment of employees who are unable to resolve such errors within 93 days of receiving the letter created widespread concern about anti-immigrant discrimination in employment and unnecessary and unjust terminations.

San Leandro Teachers Association and California Teachers Association v. Governing Board of the San Leandro Unified School District, San Leandro Unified School District, Christine Lim and Mike Hernandez (2009)
Can a school district employer censor political messages concerning the local school board election in a teachers newsletter distributed through school district employee mailboxes? Our amicus brief in support of the teachers association argued that the California Supreme Court should follow its tradition of providing broader speech protection than the U.S. Constitution and, in particular, that it should apply a functional compatibility test, rather than the federal public forum analysis. Under a functional compatibility test, the teachers union's use of the mailboxes would be protected because the newsletters and their political content would not be incompatible with the District's own use of employee mailboxes.

ACLU of Northern California v. City of Fresno (2009)
In February 2009, a Fresno television newscast aired a video of a police officer repeatedly punching Glen Beaty, a homeless man, as two officers took him into custody. In the video, Beaty does not appear to be struggling, resisting, or doing anything else that could warrant this level of force: he is lying on the ground as one officer holds his arm and the other punches him in the head. His arms are behind his back when the officer delivers a final blow to the back of his head.

International Society of Krishna Consciousness of California v. City of Los Angeles (2009)
Should the California Supreme Court apply the federal forum doctrine or the "incompatible use" test to evaluate solicitation restrictions at the Los Angeles International Airport under the California Constitution's Liberty of Speech Clause? This case presents an opportunity to urge the California Supreme Court to continue its departure from the limits of First Amendment jurisprudence in the federal courts.

Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc. (2009)
In a historic decision on April 21, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reinstated our landmark lawsuit against Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen DataPlan Inc. for its role in the Bush administration's unlawful extraordinary rendition program. The court ruled that cases like this one may not be dismissed on the grounds that "the very subject matter" of the lawsuit is a state secret. Rather, the government must invoke the state secrets privilege with respect to specific evidence, on an item-by-item basis. The Government and Jeppesen have now asked the Ninth Circuit to have an 11-member panel of judges rehear the case en banc. We are awaiting the court's decision as to whether it will grant the request.


Legal Services for Prisoners with Children; Immigrant Legal Resource Center; and Asian Law Caucus v. California Department of Corrections (2008)
The California corrections department is using underground, non-public guidelines, rather than lawful regulations, to decide whether to transfer California prisoners to other states as far away as Mississippi and Tennessee. This means that inmates and their families do not know how the prisons decide whom to transfer. It also leaves open the possibility that prison officials are using arbitrary and subjective judgments regarding race, ethnicity, and immigration status to transfer inmates thousands of miles from their families. The ACLU-NC is representing three advocacy groups in seeking to require that the prison system follow the law and make these crucial decisions using fixed, public rules, developed with input from the public.


Williams et al. v. City of Antioch (2008)
The ACLU and co-counsel filed a class action lawsuit in federal court July 16, 2008, charging that the city of Antioch and its police department are engaged in a concerted campaign of intimidation, harassment, and discrimination against African Americans who receive federally funded Section 8 housing rent assistance. The lawsuit charges violations of state and federal laws, including the Fair Housing Act; the Fourth Amendment; and the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits intentional discrimination on the basis of race. It seeks an injunction against the city of Antioch to force it to stop its targeting of African-American tenants.

ACLU-NC & Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the SF Bay Area v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (2008)
ACLU-NC and co-counsel filed a lawsuit on June 2, 2008, to compel U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to comply with a request for documents under the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The FOIA request stems from concerns over alleged violations of law and due process during immigration raids in Northern California since May 2006. Despite repeated assurances from ICE staff, the agency has failed to provide any records since documents were first requested in March 2007.

N.P. and M.H. v. Antioch Unified School District (2008)
Does a school district have the authority to expel students based on an incident involving a school resource officer that occurred off campus and after school? A Contra Costa County Superior Court ruled in May 2008 that the Antioch Unified School District violated the rights of two students when it expelled them from school following an off-campus incident in which police officers pepper-sprayed the students and forcefully arrested them. The judge overturned the expulsions. The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California and Berkeley attorney Jivaka Candappa sued the district on behalf of the students, arguing that it lacked the authority to expel the students based on the incident, and that the students' due process rights were violated during the expulsion hearings.

Internet Archive v. Mukasey (2008)
On November 26, 2007, the FBI served a National Security Letter (NSL) on the Internet Archive, a digital library. The letter sought personal information about one of the Archive's users, including the individual's name, address, and any electronic communication transactional records pertaining to the user. The NSL also included a gag order, prohibiting the Archive and its counsel from revealing the existence of the letter.


San Francisco Gang Injunctions (2008)
The ACLU-NC has historically opposed civil gang injunctions because of their unfair impact on civil liberties, their potential for racial profiling, and due process concerns. In September 2006, the City Attorney of San Francisco sought the city's first civil gang injunction in the Bayview neighborhood. On June 21, 2007, the city filed two new gang injunction cases, targeting the Mission and Western Addition neighborhoods. The ACLU-NC filed amicus briefs in all three cases, first successfully bringing the court's attention to due process concerns in the Bayview case and then raising concerns about excessive breadth, vagueness, and racial profiling in the two following cases . However, the San Francisco Superior Court ultimately issued injunctions in all three cases. In order to make these injunctions as fair as possible, the ACLU-NC and LCCR worked with the City Attorney to develop a process so that people who are not active gang members can seek removal from the gang injunction enforcement list. This process, which includes a periodic review of the underlying need for each injunction, will now be implemented by the City Attorney.


ACLU v. AT&T and Verizon (2008)
In May 2006, the three California ACLU affiliates sued AT&T and Verizon Communications on behalf of their members and a distinguished group of plaintiffs, including former member of Congress Tom Campbell, noted criminal defense attorney Dennis Riordan, other defense attorneys, journalists, and members of the clergy and the medical profession. The suits allege that AT&T and Verizon have been turning over confidential customer calling records to the National Security Agency in violation of state constitutional and statutory provisions. The lawsuits are part of a much larger group of lawsuits filed across the country against the telephone companies that gave the NSA access to the calling records and contents of the electronic communications of millions of their customers. Those lawsuits have now all been consolidated in federal district court in San Francisco. The government has asked the court to dismiss these cases, arguing that letting the truth out about how the telephone companies help the government spy on innocent Americans will harm national security. Those motions are currently under submission.

Bank Julius Baer & Co. LTD. v. Wikileaks (2008)
The ACLU of Northern California and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) successfully defended the First Amendment when they persuaded a federal district court judge in San Francisco to dissolve an order requiring a domain registrar to shut down the domain name Wikileaks.org in a dispute over documents allegedly posted on the site by a former employee of Swiss Bank Julius Baer.

Sheehan v. San Francisco 49ers (2007)
Should San Francisco 49ers' fans have to give up their privacy as the price of admission to the game? Dan and Kathleen Sheehan think the answer is no and have a filed a lawsuit challenging the 49er's requirement, instituted in 2005, that requires every man, woman, and child attending a 49ers home game to submit to a pat-down search of their bodies. On March 2, 2009, the California Supreme Court rejected the 49ers' claim that because our clients knew of the 49ers' pat-down policy at the time they renewed their season tickets, they "consented" to the searches and therefore could not challenge the practice. The case now goes back to San Francisco Superior Court where the 49ers will be required to prove that pat-downs are justified.


ACLU Protects Native American Children in Landmark School Settlement (2007)
On September 12, Bishop Union Elementary School District (BUESD) agreed to a groundbreaking settlement that will protect Native American children from racial discrimination and harsh disciplinary treatment after nearly two years of negotiations between the school district, Native American parents, and the ACLU of Northern California.

Pacific News Service v. Cate (2006)
Does California's three-drug execution protocol for capital punishment violate the public and the media's First Amendment rights because it conceals important information? The three-drug combination includes: first, sodium pentothal, a short-acting barbiturate; second, pancuronium bromide, which paralyzes all voluntary muscles; third, potassium chloride, which causes cardiac arrest. The Pacific News Service (PNS) says the second drug, pancuronium, is a chemical curtain serving no legitimate purpose in the execution and only masks any pain or suffering inflicted on the inmate by the potassium chloride. In an earlier ACLU case, CFAC v. Woodford, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2002 held that the prison's use of an actual curtain to hide the condemned inmate from spectators during the first part of California's first lethal injection "was motivated at least in part by a desire to conceal the harsh reality of executions from the public." On behalf of the PNS, the ACLU-NC filed a lawsuit in March 2006 raising a constitutional challenge to the three-drug execution protocol and seeking a permanent injunction to stop the Department of Corrections and San Quentin State Prison from using pancuronium bromide, also known as Pavulon.