Privacy & Technology
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’s 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 — Yassir Fazaga, Ali Uddin Malik, and Yasser Abdelrahim — insist that the FBI cannot escape accountability for violating their religious freedom by invoking “state secrets.” The plaintiffs are represented by the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law, the ACLU of Southern California, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Council for American Islamic Relations, and the law firm of Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai.
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View Case
Learn About Privacy & Technology
Featured
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2018
Privacy & Technology
Carpenter v. United States
The Supreme Court ruled that the government needs a warrant to access a person’s cellphone location history. The court found in a 5 to 4 decision that obtaining such information is a search under the Fourth Amendment and that a warrant from a judge based on probable cause is required.
Court Case
Dec 2016
Privacy & Technology
Sarkar v. Doe - PubPeer Subpoena Challenge
The ACLU filed a motion in Michigan state court challenging the constitutionality of a subpoena issued to the website PubPeer demanding that it turn over the identities of anonymous commenters. In March 2015, the trial judge ruled that PubPeer had to unmask one – but only one – of the commenters. Both PubPeer and the researcher appealed, and the ruling was upheld in December 2016.
All Cases
82 Privacy & Technology Cases
Court Case
May 2023
Privacy & Technology
National Security
The Warrant Clause in the Digital Age
The information generated by today’s digital devices and online services reveals private matters far beyond what one could learn from physical analogs. In a series of legal filings and a white paper, available below, the ACLU has argued that to keep apace with technological developments and adequately protect our privacy, the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement must be interpreted robustly. Seizures and searches of digital data must be cabined to probable cause, limited to specific categories of information relevant to the investigation, and closely overseen by a neutral magistrate.
Explore case
Court Case
May 2023
Privacy & Technology
National Security
The Warrant Clause in the Digital Age
The information generated by today’s digital devices and online services reveals private matters far beyond what one could learn from physical analogs. In a series of legal filings and a white paper, available below, the ACLU has argued that to keep apace with technological developments and adequately protect our privacy, the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement must be interpreted robustly. Seizures and searches of digital data must be cabined to probable cause, limited to specific categories of information relevant to the investigation, and closely overseen by a neutral magistrate.
Court Case
Apr 2023
Privacy & Technology
National Security
ACLU v. FBI - FOIA Case for FBI Records Related to Nondisclosure Agreements for Cell Site Simulators
In 2021, the ACLU submitted a FOIA request to the FBI to determine whether the FBI has continued to require state and local law enforcement agencies to enter into nondisclosure agreements before purchasing or using cell site simulators. After appealing and suing, the ACLU finally obtained responsive records confirming that the FBI has continued to impose nondisclosure agreements on law enforcement agencies seeking to use the FBI’s cell site simulators.
Explore case
Court Case
Apr 2023
Privacy & Technology
National Security
ACLU v. FBI - FOIA Case for FBI Records Related to Nondisclosure Agreements for Cell Site Simulators
In 2021, the ACLU submitted a FOIA request to the FBI to determine whether the FBI has continued to require state and local law enforcement agencies to enter into nondisclosure agreements before purchasing or using cell site simulators. After appealing and suing, the ACLU finally obtained responsive records confirming that the FBI has continued to impose nondisclosure agreements on law enforcement agencies seeking to use the FBI’s cell site simulators.
U.S. Supreme Court
Feb 2023
Privacy & Technology
+2 Issues
Twitter, Inc., v. Taamneh
The Supreme Court will decide whether a social media or other platform can be liable for “aiding and abetting” a terrorist attack merely because it failed to adequately block content valorizing terrorism, even where the platform has policies barring terrorist content.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Feb 2023
Privacy & Technology
+2 Issues
Twitter, Inc., v. Taamneh
The Supreme Court will decide whether a social media or other platform can be liable for “aiding and abetting” a terrorist attack merely because it failed to adequately block content valorizing terrorism, even where the platform has policies barring terrorist content.
U.S. Supreme Court
Nov 2022
Privacy & Technology
Moore v. United States
On November 18, 2022, the ACLU and ACLU of Massachusetts, with the law firms of Thompson & Thompson, P.C. and Elkins, Auer, Rudof & Schiff, filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the question whether long-term police use of a surveillance camera targeted at a person’s home is a Fourth Amendment search.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Nov 2022
Privacy & Technology
Moore v. United States
On November 18, 2022, the ACLU and ACLU of Massachusetts, with the law firms of Thompson & Thompson, P.C. and Elkins, Auer, Rudof & Schiff, filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the question whether long-term police use of a surveillance camera targeted at a person’s home is a Fourth Amendment search.
Court Case
Aug 2022
Privacy & Technology
Free Speech
NAACP v. Kohn
The ACLU, the ACLU of South Carolina, and the NAACP have filed a lawsuit on behalf of the South Carolina NAACP challenging the South Carolina Court Administration's categorical ban on automated data collection, known as "scraping," on the Public Index. The South Carolina NAACP seeks to scrape eviction records to identify tenants in proceedings and conduct outreach to provide services to them. The ban on scraping violates South Carolina NAACP’s First Amendment right to access and record public court records, impairing South Carolina NAACP's ability to prevent evictions and help people achieve meaningful access to the courts.
Explore case
Court Case
Aug 2022
Privacy & Technology
Free Speech
NAACP v. Kohn
The ACLU, the ACLU of South Carolina, and the NAACP have filed a lawsuit on behalf of the South Carolina NAACP challenging the South Carolina Court Administration's categorical ban on automated data collection, known as "scraping," on the Public Index. The South Carolina NAACP seeks to scrape eviction records to identify tenants in proceedings and conduct outreach to provide services to them. The ban on scraping violates South Carolina NAACP’s First Amendment right to access and record public court records, impairing South Carolina NAACP's ability to prevent evictions and help people achieve meaningful access to the courts.