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
75 Privacy & Technology Cases
Michigan
Dec 2024
Privacy & Technology
Woodruff v. Oliver
On December 5, 2024, the ACLU and the ACLU of Michigan filed an amicus brief in Woodruff v. Oliver, a wrongful arrest lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, arguing that the Detroit Police Department’s (DPD) reliance on flawed facial recognition technology (FRT) impermissibly tainted the investigation and failed to establish probable cause for the plaintiff’s arrest.
Explore case
Michigan
Dec 2024
Privacy & Technology
Woodruff v. Oliver
On December 5, 2024, the ACLU and the ACLU of Michigan filed an amicus brief in Woodruff v. Oliver, a wrongful arrest lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, arguing that the Detroit Police Department’s (DPD) reliance on flawed facial recognition technology (FRT) impermissibly tainted the investigation and failed to establish probable cause for the plaintiff’s arrest.
Virginia
Sep 2024
Privacy & Technology
United States v. Chatrie
Explore case
Virginia
Sep 2024
Privacy & Technology
United States v. Chatrie
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Jul 2024
Privacy & Technology
Commonwealth v. Foster
Explore case
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Jul 2024
Privacy & Technology
Commonwealth v. Foster
Mississippi
Jul 2024
Privacy & Technology
Free Speech
NetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment.
Explore case
Mississippi
Jul 2024
Privacy & Technology
Free Speech
NetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment.
Arizona
Jun 2024
Privacy & Technology
State v. Mitcham
The ACLU and the ACLU of Arizona filed amicus briefs before the Arizona Court of Appeals and the Arizona Supreme Court arguing that the government cannot genetically test any biological material it already has in its possession—whether that’s blood taken from newborns to test for diseases or swabs collected from sexual assault survivors—to investigate the donors for a crime without first obtaining a warrant. This filing is part of the broader fight to preserve the privacy of our sensitive genetic information.
Explore case
Arizona
Jun 2024
Privacy & Technology
State v. Mitcham
The ACLU and the ACLU of Arizona filed amicus briefs before the Arizona Court of Appeals and the Arizona Supreme Court arguing that the government cannot genetically test any biological material it already has in its possession—whether that’s blood taken from newborns to test for diseases or swabs collected from sexual assault survivors—to investigate the donors for a crime without first obtaining a warrant. This filing is part of the broader fight to preserve the privacy of our sensitive genetic information.