Court Cases

The ACLU Foundation of Northern California and the ACLU of the District of Columbia sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) over its unlawful attempt to obtain from Google the personal and location information of a Canadian citizen who has posted content critical of the Trump administration online. This case is among a large number of instances of social media critics who have been targeted by DHS. Since the start of the second Trump administration, social media platforms have received hundreds of similar government demands for information designed to chill speech the government doesn’t like. Our lawsuit asks the court to rule that DHS is exceeding its legal authority by demanding vast swaths of personal information about the plaintiff, including his name, where he lives, extensive information about his physical movements, and detailed records about the websites he visits and the people he communicates with online. On his social media accounts, the plaintiff, John Doe, who uses a pseudonym to protect his privacy and family, regularly posts strongly worded criticisms of President Trump and his policies. In February, DHS issued an administrative demand to Google to release his personal information shortly after he posted online criticism of the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal agents in Minneapolis. The attempt to force Google to turn over information about Mr. Doe far exceeds DHS’s legal authority, which the agency issued without any involvement from a court, citing a customs enforcement law. Mr. Doe, a Canadian citizen who resides in Canada, has not entered the U.S. since 2015. The ACLU of Northern California, the ACLU of Pennsylvania, and the ACLU national organization have filed three other cases challenging similar abuses, but DHS withdrew those subpoenas before a judge could rule on their legality. This lawsuit, filed in the Northern District of California, goes a step further than previous challenges. It asks the court to not only invalidate this summons, but also make clear that the government may not use its customs enforcement authority to attempt to identify and intimidate its critics.

On April 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Mullin v. Dahlia Doe, a case challenging the Trump administration’s attempt to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for thousands of Syrian immigrants living and working legally in the United States. The case could affect the future of the entire TPS program, which has been a target of the Trump administration and its openly racist mass deportation agenda. TPS is a program established by Congress in 1990 to protect individuals who cannot safely return to their home country due to war, natural disaster, or other emergencies. TPS holders are mothers, fathers, workers, and contributing members of their communities. They rely on this humanitarian protection regime for safety. The Supreme Court’s ruling will impact not only Syrian TPS holders but will also affect whether the Trump administration can move forward with its actions seeking to strip legal status from many others. There are 1.3 million individuals from 17 countries designated for TPS. At the time the Supreme Court will be hearing this case, the Trump administration has terminated TPS for 13 countries—despite ongoing wars and undisputed humanitarian crises. Alongside our co-counsel the International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP), Muslim Advocates, and Van Der Hout LLP, the ACLU of Northern California represents seven Syrian nationals with TPS or pending applications in Mullin v. Dahlia Doe, a class action lawsuit originally filed in October 2025. Cancelling TPS designation for Syria would subject nearly 6,100 Syrian TPS holders, along with 800 Syrians with pending applications, to immigrant detention and possible deportation to an unsafe country. The plaintiffs argue that the DHS Secretary does not have the legal authority to unilaterally override the TPS statute enacted by Congress, and that it is the role of the judiciary to review the government’s legally dubious actions.

We filed a class-action lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's policy of arresting immigrants when they appear for court in Northern California and holding them in inhumane conditions inside the San Francisco ICE field office.

The ACLU Foundation of Northern California has filed a lawsuit to block Sonoma County code inspectors from using drones to conduct surveillance of people's homes without a warrant.

The ACLU’s lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court seeks to protects tenants' privacy rights from landlords who force renters to allow AI-powered surveillance technology in their homes. In multiple residential buildings across San Francisco, landlords have forced tenants to accept so-called “smart home” systems that monitor their comings and goings and other behavior. They're using tenants’ personal information to track them, potentially even profiling their behavior with AI tools built specially for landlords.

The ACLU of Northern California and the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed suit in Santa Clara County Superior Court against the City of San Jose and others to challenge San Jose police officers’ practice of searching for location information collected by automated license plate readers (ALPRs) without first getting a warrant.

We filed a class-action lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's policy of re-arresting and re-detaining immigrants the government previously had released from custody after concluding they were neither dangerous nor a flight risk.

National TPS Alliance v. Noem (NTPSA II) is a legal challenge to the Trump administration’s unlawful efforts to dismantle the statutorily mandated Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program for Nepal, Honduras, and Nicaragua, which provides humanitarian protection for people who cannot safely return to their home countries.

We're challenging the governor's authority to reverse parole as a violation of the rights of young people.