Court Cases

We filed a motion in federal court to prevent Meta from complying with the Department of Homeland Security’s demand that the tech giant turn over the name, email address, and phone number associated with an Instagram account that reposted a video naming a Border Patrol agent. We argue that the government’s administrative subpoena violated First Amendment protections for anonymous political speech.

California activists are suing the Marin County Sheriff for illegally sharing drivers’ license plate data with ICE, CBP and other out-of-state agencies.

The ACLU of Northern California, the Immigrant Defense Project, Just Futures Law, and Mijente sued the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Customs and Border Protection under the Freedom of Information Act seeking records of their use of Clearview AI’s face surveillance system.

In 2004, the FBI conducted a “threat assessment” of long-time journalists and commentators Justin Raimondo and Eric Garris, as well as their website, Antiwar.com. In violation of the federal Privacy Act, this threat assessment compiled descriptions of the journalists’ First Amendment activities without any apparent law enforcement purpose. Attorneys at the ACLU Foundation of Northern California and Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP represented the journalists in a federal lawsuit against the FBI. Records the journalists received in response to their Freedom of Information Act claims revealed that the threat assessment was based on shoddy investigative work in addition to the apparent targeting of the journalists’ political speech. In the litigation, the FBI asserted that it was entitled to create this threat assessment because of Antiwar.com’s posting of government documents. But the First Amendment has long protected the publication of government secrets and the FBI never even suggested that the journalists or Antiwar.com had violated the law by obtaining or posting those documents.

ACLU Foundation of Northern California lawsuit seeking information about the federal government’s use of location tracking technologies. Specifically, how the government seeks or obtains location information and whether this surveillance practice is constitutional.