Court Cases

On March 31, 2026, President Trump issued a sweeping Executive Order titled "Ensuring Citizen Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections," seeking once again to seize control of election administration from Congress and the states. The Order directs the Department of Homeland Security to compile lists of citizens from federal databases — including Social Security Administration records and immigration data — and transmit those lists to states before every federal election. It then directs USPS to refuse to deliver mail-in or absentee ballots from any voter who does not appear on a federally created enrollment list. It also threatens states with non-delivery of their voters' ballots unless those states submit lists of eligible mail voters to USPS at least 60 days before each election. If implemented, the Order would threaten the ability of millions of eligible citizens to cast their ballots, particularly military members, overseas citizens, the elderly, recently naturalized citizens, and voters with disabilities who rely on mail voting. The Constitution gives Congress and the states — not the President — the power to regulate elections. Despite this, President Trump's March 31, 2026 Executive Order attempts to impose a sweeping new federal regime over mail-in and absentee voting nationwide. This Executive Order is President Trump's second attempt to seize control of federal elections by executive fiat, issued despite injunctions from three separate federal courts blocking a previous 2025 Executive Order on similar grounds. Plaintiffs in this case bring six claims: the Order violates the constitutional separation of powers; it is ultra vires because it commandeers USPS in violation of Congress's postal statutes; it violates the Tenth Amendment and principles of federalism by coercing states to alter their election laws; it unconstitutionally burdens the right to vote; it violates Section 11(a) of the Voting Rights Act by directing USPS to refuse to deliver lawful ballots to eligible voters; and it violates the Privacy Act by requiring the rushed, non-consensual compilation and dissemination of inaccurate personal data about millions of Americans without the required public notice and comment.

In December 2025, the ACLU of Massachusetts and the ACLU Voting Rights Project filed a motion to intervene on behalf of Common Cause, Jane Doe Inc., and a Massachusetts voter in United States of America v. Galvin to prevent the U.S. Department of Justice from obtaining Massachusetts voters’ personal data. In July 2025, the DOJ asked Massachusetts to turn over voters’ full names, dates of birth, addresses, driver’s license numbers, and partial Social Security numbers — highly sensitive data protected under state and federal law. Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth William F. Galvin appropriately declined to share this sensitive data. The United States then filed this lawsuit — one of at least twenty-five nearly identical actions the DOJ has initiated against states and election officials — seeking to compel the production of sensitive Massachusetts voter data. According to extensive public reporting, corroborated by government documents, the DOJ’s requests for private, sensitive voter data from Massachusetts and other states appear to be in connection with novel efforts to construct a national voter database, and to otherwise use untested forms of database analysis to scrutinize state voter rolls and challenge voters’ eligibility. In their motion to intervene, the parties argue that the DOJ’s request threatens voter privacy and could enable voter disenfranchisement. The parties’ motion to intervene was allowed on January 6, 2026. On behalf of the intervenors, the ACLU has since filed a motion to dismiss the DOJ’s complaint. The intervenors argue that the United States seeks to compel disclosure of sensitive voter information to which it is not entitled. Neither the information requests propounded by the DOJ, nor the complaint itself provide the “basis and the purpose” for the DOJ’s requests as required under the Civil Rights Act of 1960, under which the DOJ brings suit. The intervenors argue that the DOJ is grossly misusing civil rights era statutes to reach discriminatory and illegal ends. Additionally, the intervenors argue that the DOJ’s stated reason for requesting millions of Massachusetts voters’ personal data is pretextual. Public reporting and publicly available government documents confirm that the United States’s actual purpose is not to ensure compliance with federal statute, but to compile an unprecedented national voter file using error-prone forms of data-aggregation and then to use this tool to identify and mass-challenge ostensibly ineligible voters. Common Cause, an intervenor in the case, is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization dedicated to upholding the core values of American democracy. Jane Doe Inc. is a coalition of organizations dedicated to advocating on behalf of survivors of sexual and domestic violence. The group has an interest in protecting the privacy of survivors. Juan Pablo Jaramillo, a naturalized U.S. citizen, is also represented in the case. Jaramillo has an interest because his status as a naturalized citizen may place him at a heightened risk of being targeted for voter disenfranchisement, a threat that extends to countless other Massachusetts voters.

On October 14, 2025, the United States military carried out an illegal missile strike that killed Chad Joseph and Rishi Samaroo, two Trinidadian men who were traveling by boat from Venezuela to their homes in Las Cuevas, Trinidad and Tobago. The American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School filed suit on behalf of Lenore Burnley, Mr. Joseph’s mother, and Sallycar Korasingh, Mr. Samaroo’s sister, seeking redress and accountability for these extrajudicial killings pursuant to the Death on the High Seas Act and the Alien Tort Statute.

In December 2025, the ACLU of Massachusetts filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of our client, Carlos Zapata Rivera. The lawsuit alleges that an ICE agent unlawfully applied a carotid restraint to Mr. Zapata Rivera while arresting him on Nov. 6, 2025, then refused him prompt emergency medical care. Mr. Zapata Rivera, a resident of Fitchburg, Massachusetts, was driving his wife to work with their one-year-old daughter in the car when they were pulled over by several ICE agents. The agents informed Mr. Zapata Rivera’s wife that they intended to arrest her. The lawsuit alleges an unidentified ICE agent, listed in the lawsuit as Agent John Doe, climbed into the vehicle and pressed his thumbs forcefully on Mr. Zapata Rivera’s carotid arteries, restricting blood flow to his brain. Mr. Zapata Rivera lost consciousness, and he experienced involuntary seizure-like movements. The ICE agent continued to apply the carotid restraint with at least one hand while these involuntary movements continued. The Department of Homeland Security’s own policies prohibit agents from using carotid restraint techniques except when deadly force is justified. The lawsuit also alleges that ICE agents refused to allow Mr. Zapata Rivera to be evaluated by emergency medical personnel at the scene. After his release, he continued to suffer severe physical symptoms and went to the emergency room for treatment. The Department of Homeland Security’s public statements about the incident accused Mr. Zapata Rivera of faking a seizure and refusing medical care. An immigrant from Ecuador, Mr. Zapata Rivera applied for asylum in early 2024 and has been authorized to work in the United States while that application is pending. After his counsel sent a letter to ICE requesting that the agency preserve evidence relating to this incident, ICE abruptly sent Mr. Zapata Rivera a “call-in letter” demanding that he appear with his passport at ICE’s Burlington office at 10 a.m. on Thursday, Dec. 18, 2025. It was the first time he had received such a request since early 2023.

In July 2025, the ACLU of Massachusetts, together with the ACLU, law firm Rubin Pomerleau, P.C., and Boston College Law School Immigration Clinic filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the detention of an 18-year-old under the Laken Riley Act (LRA). The habeas petition alleges “John Doe”...

In May 2025, a multifaith group of Quincy residents and taxpayers filed a lawsuit to stop the planned installation of two large religious statues at the entrance of the city’s new public safety building. The plaintiffs are members of diverse faiths who do not want their government officials...

In March 2025, doctors from Harvard Medical School challenged the removal of their articles from the Patient Safety Network (PSNet), a government-run website for doctors and medical researchers to share information about medical errors, misdiagnoses, and patient outcomes.

In April 2025, researchers, along with American Public Health Association (APHA), the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), and Ibis Reproductive Health, filed a lawsuit challenging the abrupt cancellation of research grants by...