Closed Cases

Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommate.com (2008)
Two Southern California fair housing organizations sued Roomate.com, an Internet-based roommate matching service, arguing that the website must be held responsible for postings on the site that violate federal fair housing laws. Roommate.com argued that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects websites from liability for content posted by third parties, gives it complete immunity from suit. After agreeing to have the case re-heard en banc, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion that holds housing websites accountable for their own actions that violate the fair housing laws but sustains the important free speech protections of section 230 by holding that housing websites may not be held liable for the discriminatory comments of users of the site. The ACLU-NC filed a friend of the court brief urging the court to carefully separate content and conduct by Roommate.com from that of the individuals who use its service.


Scott et al. v. Napa Valley Unified School District et al. (2007)
On March 19, 2007, the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California filed in Napa Superior Court on behalf of five families, seeking judicial relief from an unconstitutionally vague, overbroad and restrictive dress code enforced by Redwood Middle School and the Napa Valley Unified School District.


People v. Broderick Boys (2007)
The District Attorney of Yolo County in late December 2004 sought a permanent injunction against the Broderick Boys “gang,” attempting to place on permanent probation, without any trial or due process, hundreds of residents of a predominantly Latino neighborhood in West Sacramento. In July 2005, the ACLU-NC filed a motion to set aside the permanent injunction for lack of notice, which the judge denied. The ACLU-NC appealed, filing the final brief in that appeal in June 2006. On April 23, 2007, the California Court of Appeal agreed with the ACLU-NC and voided the permanent injunction imposed on the so-called Broderick Boys gang.


Zhang v. Gonzales (2007)
The ACLU of Northern California, the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, the Asian Law Caucus and the Council on American-Islamic Relations filed a class action lawsuit challenging the United States Custom and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) failure to process citizenship applications within a reasonable time period. The lawsuit is based on federal laws that require timely processing of immigration benefits applications, including a provision which allows individuals to go to court if USCIS takes more than 120 days after completing the naturalization examination.

Berkeley Police Association v. City of Berkeley (2006)
The Berkeley Police Association is seeking to shut down the open public hearing process that has made Berkeley's Police Review Commission (PRC) a model for the nation since its creation in 1973. In the wake of the recent Copley Press v. San Diego County decision (which severely limits public access to the disciplinary records of police officers), the police association is hoping to exclude the public from the Police Review Commission process. The ACLU-NC filed an amicus brief in support of the City of Berkeley’s defense of an open civilian process.


People of the State of California v. Oakdale Mob (2006)
In response to the City’s first request for a civil injunction against an alleged gang in San Francisco’s Bayview neighborhood, the ACLU-NC filed an amicus brief on October 17, 2006 asking the Court to deny the City Attorney’s request for preliminary injunction at the scheduled October 30, 2006 hearing. The ACLU-NC asked the Court to continue the hearing and to direct the City to provide constitutionally adequate notice to all the individuals whom it is targeting so that they may have the opportunity to appear in Court and contest the allegations against them before issuing a preliminary injunction.


League of Women Voters of California v. McPherson (2006)
The ACLU-NC filed League of Women Voters v. McPherson to restore the voting rights of over 145,000 Californians (mostly young men of color with non-violent felony convictions), who were recently disenfranchised by the Attorney General. The Attorney General's opinion challenged by the ACLU-NC states that individuals in jail as a condition of felony probation cannot vote, contrary to the language and legislative history of the California Constitution which disenfranchise only people in prison or on parole.


United States v. Jamison (2006)
The ACLU-NC filed an amicus brief arguing that the government violates the Sixth Amendment and attorney-client privilege when it records telephone calls between a pre-trial detainee and his lawyer and then provides the recordings to the prosecution team.

Joshua Wolf v. United States of America (2006)
A federal grand jury issued a subpoena seeking the unpublished portions of a journalist's videotape of a political demonstration. The journalist refused to hand over the material, asserting his First Amendment rights. The ACLU-NC filed amicus briefs arguing that a journalist does have a qualified First Amendment privilege in such circumstances and that a court must balance the reporter's and the public's interest in effective newsgathering versus the government's interest in compelling disclosure.

ACLU v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2006)
Is the US Government lawfully implementing its deportation program targeting non-citizen sex offenders?

Velazquez v. Henderson (2006)
Without any trial or due process, hundreds of West Sacramento residents of a predominantly Latino neighborhood were served a permanent "gang" injunction. In addition to challenging this injunction in a separate case, California v. Broderick Boys, the ACLU-NC is representing one such resident, a 28-year-old father, who was served by the injunction that imposes a lifetime 10 P.M. curfew, among other restrictions. The ACLU-NC is seeks a court order establishing that the Velazquez is not an active gang member, and thus the injunction must be vacated as to him and his name must be purged from the police gang files.


O'Connell v. City of Stockton (2006)
Is due process violated by a city forfeiture ordinance that authorizes the immediate seizure of vehicles allegedly involved in the solicitation of prostitution or drugs without any provision for a prompt hearing to determining probably cause and the necessity for retaining the vehicle during the pendency of the forfeiture action?


ACLU-NC v. Department of Defense (2006)


Commission on Peace Officers Standards & Training v. Superior Court for County of Sacramento (2006)
The Los Angeles Times sought release of records from the California Commission on Police Officers Standards and Training regarding the appointment, promotion, and termination histories of various police officers. Trial court granted access to some of the requested information. Court of Appeal reversed it. The Los Angeles Times appealed. The ACLU-NC filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court supporting the right of access to the information.

Michael Morales Cases (2006)


Clarence Allen Cases (2005)


Darensburg v. Metropolitan Transportation Commission (2005)
Are plaintiff's claiming intentional discrimination able to allege an injury in fact based only on the non-economic, psychic harm of discrimination absent a facial classification scheme?


R.G. v. Koller (2005)
A federal civil rights lawsuit against Hawai'i Youth Correctional Facility (HYCF), the state's juvenile detention facility. The three plaintiffs were abused and harassed because of their sexual orientation and gender identity while at HYCF.

Angelucci v. Century Supper Club (2005)
Must victims of discrimination affirmatively request and be denied equal treatment before they may sue under the Unruh Act or the Gender Tax Repeal Act? Does advertising a sex-based price discount violate the Unruh Act or the Gender Tax Repeal Act?


In re Scott, On Habeus Corpus (2005)


Cheema v. Chandless (2005)
The American Civil Liberties Union today filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging restrictions on an asylum seeker’s right to wear a religious head covering. The plaintiff, Harpal Singh Cheema, is a devout Sikh, imprisoned since 1997 while awaiting a decision on his asylum application. The lawsuit charges that the restrictions on Cheema’s religious practice violate religious freedom as guaranteed by the First Amendment and federal laws, including the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

California Statewide Communities Developement Authority v. All Persons Interested in the Matter of the Validity of the Purchase Agreement (2005)
The issue in this case is whether the California Constitution allows the government to underwrite part of the cost of a religious school’s borrowing money to construct facilities. The government issues tax-exempt bonds to nonprofit organizations, acting as a conduit between the organization and lender, so that the interest on the loan is not taxed. This allows the organization to borrow money at a lower rate. The state therefore loses revenue, essentially subsidizing part of the cost of the loan. The question presented by this case is whether providing this benefit to a pervasively sectarian school, which integrates religion into every aspect of the curriculum and discriminates in admission and hiring along religious lines, violates the California Constitution’s ban on public aid to religious institutions.

Williams v. State of California (2005)
A Class-action lawsuit aimed at ensuring equal educational opportunity for all California children.

Kesser v. Cambra (2005)
Should a criminal defendant have the burden of proving that a prosecutor’s peremptory challenges to all of the Native American jurors in the jury pool were “predominantly” based on race or is it enough to show that one of the reasons for the challenges was based on racial stereotypes?

Beardslee v. Woodford (2005)
An appeal was filed to halt the execution of Donald Beardslee, arguing that one of the drugs used in the procedure, Pavulon, would paralyze and leave him unable to signal if he was in pain, violating Beardslee’s Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. The ACLU-NC and Death Penalty Focus filed an amicus brief arguing that the paralyzing drug forms a chemical curtain that prevents the First Amendment right of the media and the public to know whether the condemned man is in pain.

Weber v. Lockyer (2004)
Does compulsory testing and maintenance of DNA from persons who are arrested for felony offenses and persons with past convictions who are no longer supervised by the criminal justice system violate the Fourth Amendment and federal privacy rights?


American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California v. Department of Justice (2004)


Kaczynski v. United States of America (2004)
May the government block the donation of the Unabomber’s writings to a university library to prevent the glorification of his crimes?

Knight v. Schwarzenegger (2004)


Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco (2004)


Green v. Transportation Security Administration (2004)


Planned Parenthood Federation of America v. Ashcroft (2004)
In September 2003, President Bush signed the so-called “Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003,” the first federal criminal law banning abortion in the United States. This is one of three cases challenging that law.

Maltez v. Alvaro (2004)


Barrett v. Rosenthal (2004)
The issue raised in Barrett v. Rosenthal was whether the protection of the Communications Decency Act's Section 230 applies to individuals who frequently use the Internet to pass on information obtained elsewhere, whether by forwarding an email written by someone else or, as was the case in Barrett, posting an email from someone else to a newsgroup. The ACLU-NC filed an amicus brief in the California Court of Appeal arguing that Section 230 means what it says and applies to “users” of interactive computer services as well as “providers.”

Propostion 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund v. City and County of San Francisco (2004)


People of the State of California v. George T. (2003)


Walters v. Conant (2003)


Evans v. City of Berkeley (2003)
After the City terminated the Sea Scouts’ free berth space, the Sea Scouts sued the City, claiming that it had violated their First Amendment and equal protection rights. The trial court dismissed the action, and plaintiffs appealed. The First Appellate district affirmed. Evans v. City of Berkeley, 104 Cal. App. 4th 1 (2002). The appellate court (after affirming the dismissal of contract and other common-law claims) held that the City did not violate the plaintiffs’ First Amendment or equal protection rights.

Sothwest Voter Education Registration Project v. Shelley (2003)


Southwest Voter Registration Education Project v. Shelley (2003)


International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 10 v. City of Oakland (2003)


Castaneda v. The Regents of the University of California (2003)
Filed in 1999 on behalf of African-American, Latino, and Pilipino American applicants to UC Berkeley, Castaneda v. Regents of the University of California alleged that the university’s admission procedures unfairly disadvantaged applicants of color in violation of their federal civil rights by not taking into account the full range of indicators of “merit.” The parties were able to settle the case because of UC Berkeley’s decision to use “comprehensive review” for every applicant. A federal judge in San Francisco approved a consent decree, which requires the Regents to take certain steps to ensure compliance with civil rights laws.

Citizens for Parental Rights v. Novato Unified School District (2003)


Williams v. Woodford (2002)


In re Rozencrantz, In re Smith, On Habeas Corpus (2002)


Intel Coporation v. Hamidi (2002)


DVD Copy Control Association v. Bunner (2002)


Kasky v. Nike (2002)


Debro v. San Leandro Unified School District (2002)


Clement v. California Department of Corrections (2002)
The landmark case Clement v. California Department of Corrections was brought on behalf of Pelican Bay prisoner Frank Clement by the ACLU of Northern California and the Prison Law Office. Clement filed a federal court challenge to the California Department of Corrections policy prohibiting inmates at the prison from receiving any mail that contains material printed from the Internet. A U.S. district court judge ruled that prisoners have a First Amendment right to receive mail that contains material printed from the Internet and barred the California Department of Corrections from "enforcing any policy prohibiting California inmates from receiving mail that contains Internet-generated information."

Chowdhury v. Northwest Airlines Corporation (2002)
The ACLU-NC, along with the law firm Relman & Associates, filed a discrimination lawsuit against Northwest Airlines for refusing to allow Arshad Chowdhury, a 26-year-old Bangladeshi-American, to board a Northwest flight even though he posed no security threat. The complaint was filed on the same day and in collaboration with four other similar complaints filed across the country by other ACLU affiliates against major airlines. All of the lawsuits concern airlines' widely-reported practice since September 11 of discriminating against passengers who are, or are perceived to be, of Middle Eastern origin.


Pavlovich v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (2002)


Gebin v. Mineta (2002)


Flores v. Morgan Hill Unified School District (2001)
After more than five-and-one-half years of litigation, including two trips to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the ACLU reached a ground-breaking settlement in a lawsuit challenging a school district’s failure to stop a vicious barrage of harassment directed at students based on their perceived sexual orientation. The ACLU represented six former students of Live Oak High School in this federal court suit against the Morgan Hill Unified School District. The settlement, in addition to garnering more than $1.1 million in damages and attorneys’ fees, set up a comprehensive 4-year training program for both students and staff designed to combat harassment of LGBT students in the district. The litigation also resulted in an important Ninth Circuit decision establishing that if a school knows harassment is taking place against LGBT students, it is obligated to take meaningful steps to end it and to protect the students.

NAACP v. Davis (2001)


Catholic Charities of Sacramento Inc. v. The Superior Court of Sacramento County (2001)


Gay Straight Alliance Network v. Visalia Unified School District (2000)