Center for Constitutional Rights

• Turkmen v. Ashcroft:^[23]
  This suit, filed on behalf of a class of Muslim, South Asian, and Arab non-citizens, is a class action civil rights lawsuit contesting their being swept up by the INS and FBI in a racial profiling dragnet following 9/11.
• United States v. City of New York (formerly Vulcan Society v. City of New York):
  Fire Department of New York
  with discriminatory hiring practices.
• Wiwa v. Shell Petroleum Development Company:^[25] These are three lawsuits focusing on the human rights abuses against the Ogoni people
  in Nigeria by officers of corporations related to petroleum production. They are being brought against the Royal Dutch Petroleum Company and Shell Transport and Trading Company (Royal Dutch/Shell), the head of its Nigerian operation, and Royal Dutch/Shell's Nigerian subsidiary for their complicity in the abuses.
• Zalita v. Bush, 127 S. Ct. 2159 (2007):
  Libyan
  refugee detained in Guantanamo for nearly six years. It challenges the U.S. government plan to transfer him to his native country despite his risk of torture and persecution there.
• International Criminal Court Complaint, 2011[27] On September 13, 2011, attorneys from the Center for Constitutional Rights and leaders of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, formally filed a complaint with the International Criminal Court (ICC) charging top Vatican officials for tolerating and enabling the concealment of rape and child sex crimes worldwide. At least 20,000 pages of reports, policy papers, and crime evidence by Catholic clergy supplemented the complaint.
• The Amicus Brief in Ragbir v. Holder (2011)^[28] The Amicus Brief in Ragbir v. Holder was submitted on May 23, 2011. Amici are several community, immigrant justice, and civil rights organizations who argue that the Second Circuit interfered with Ragbir's right to introduce relevant evidence. The Second Circuit wrongfully did not remand Ragbir v. Holder to the Board of Immigration Appeals to apply broader evidentiary standards established in the Nijhawan v. Holder case.^[29]
• Brown, et al. v. Snyder, et al. (2011) This June 22, 2011 case was filed on behalf 28 Michigan residents, and it effectively challenges the Emergency Manager law and Local Government and School Fiscal Accountability Act under the State Supreme court of Michigan. The amended complaint, filed by the CCR on September 14, 2011, challenged the constitutionality of the application of the Emergency Manager law.^[30]
• Civic Association of the Deaf of New York City, Inc. v. Rudolph Giuliani, et al. (1995) When New York City introduced a plan to remove fire alarm boxes and replace them with payphones, the Civic Association of the Deaf of New York City filed this suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act to block that action because pay phones are not easily accessible to the deaf or the hard of hearing. This federal class action lawsuit resulted in a victory for the Plaintiffs. When the New York City Fire Department and the City of New York requested that the court modify or dispose of the injunction in June 2010, the court again ruled in favor of the Civic Association of the Deaf of New York City on August 15, 2011.^[31]
• Doe, et al. v. Jindal, et al. (2011) On February 16, 2011, the CCR filed a suit that challenged the registration of persons convicted of "Crime Against Nature" on the state
  sex offenders list. The defendants in this case were several Louisiana state officials.^[32] On October 31, 2011, the CCR moved for a Summary Judgement.^[33]
• Amicus Brief in Glik v. Cunniffe, et al. (2011) On January 25, 2011, CCR submitted an amicus brief on behalf of Glik and several Copwatch groups. The essential argument is that recording police activities by individuals or organizations within a community is protected by the First Amendment. In September 2011, the judge ruled in favor of Glik stating that his First Amendment rights had been violated.[34]
• Aref, et al. v. Holder, et al. (2010) This case, filed on March 30, 2010, challenged policies and conditions of experimental state prisons in Indiana and Illinois. One year later, the court partially dismissed the case, but allowed the CCR to pursue procedural due process and retaliation claims.^[35]

Notable cases

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Center for Constitutional Rights" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (January 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

• unconstitutional
  .
• Students for a Democratic Society and Black Panther Party
  members. The eight were found not guilty of their conspiracy charges, but five were found guilty of crossing state lines to incite a riot. The Center appealed and ultimately overturned these charges, based on the judge's bias and the refusal of the court to screen jurors for possible cultural and/or racial bias.
• Abramowicz v. Lefkowitz, (1972):[38] Abramowicz challenged New York state laws that restricted abortion, and served as a model for challenges to similar laws in other states. This case marks the first instance of challenge to abortion statutes being argued by women plaintiffs in terms of women's right to choice rather than a doctor's right to practice.
• Monell v. Department of Social Services, 357 F.Supp. 1051 (1972):^[39] This case began as a challenge to New York City's forced maternity leave policies. Its resolution created a precedent that established local government accountability for unconstitutional acts and created the right to obtain damages from municipalities in such cases. Since 1978, this precedent has been used by lawyers and non-profits as a tool to challenge police misconduct
  , civil rights violations, and other local unconstitutional acts.
• State of Washington v. Wanrow (1972): A women's self-defense murder case, CCR became counsel when the appeal process reached the Washington Supreme Court. The appellate court reversal of the original conviction was upheld. The landmark Supreme Court decision had far-reaching effects on women's self-defense and the law.^[40]
• United States v. Banks and Means (
  Wounded Knee), (1974)^[41]
• Doe v. Unocal
  . These cases have established that multinational corporations and other non-state actors can be held responsible for their complicity in human rights violations.
• Crumsey v. Justice Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, (1982):^[43]
• Paul v. Avril, (1994): In 1991, on behalf of six Haitian political activists, including Evans Paul, Mayor of Port-au-Prince, and under the Alien Tort Statute, the CCR sued former military dictator Prosper Avril for human rights violations. The suit sought compensation for damages that the plaintiffs suffered under Avril's rule. In November 1993, CCR attorneys moved for a default judgment. In July 1994, in an unprecedented decision in which a Haitian dictator or member of the military was held accountable for human rights abuses, a federal magistrate awarded a $41 million damage judgment to the victims of Prosper Avril.^[44]
• Doe v. Karadzic, (2000): In 1993, the Center for Constitutional Rights and co-counsel filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for victims and survivors of Serb leader
  Radovan Karadzic's campaign of genocide and torture in Bosnia. Karadzic defaulted in 1997. On September 25, 2000, the jury decided on a verdict of $4.5 billion.^[45]
• Rasul v. Bush, 215 F. Supp. 2d 55 (2004):^[11] CCR represented Guantanamo detainees seeking fair trials and an end to their indefinite imprisonment without charge. The Supreme Court case established precedent for U.S. courts' jurisdiction over the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, affirming detainees' right to habeas corpus review, including legal representation. This right was later putatively revoked when President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act into law. CCR brought many of the same habeas corpus petitioners to the Supreme Court again in Boumediene v. Bush (2008), in which the Supreme Court declared the relevant parts of the MCA unconstitutional and restored the rights won in Rasul.
• Floyd, et al. v. City of New York, et al. (2013) CCR filed a federal class action lawsuit against the New York City Police Department (NYPD) and the City of New York that challenges the NYPD's practices of racial profiling and "stop-and frisk." These NYPD practices had led to a dramatic increase in the number of suspicion-less stop-and-frisks per year in the city, with the majority of stops in communities of color. On August 12, 2013, a federal judge in a historic ruling found the New York City Police Department (NYPD) liable for a pattern and practice of racial profiling and unconstitutional stop-and-frisks. On January 30, 2014, the City agreed to drop its appeal of the ruling and begin the joint remedial process ordered by the court.^[46]