- ICC VATICAN PROSECUTION
- Our Issues
- Learn More
- Get Involved
- Our Cases
- About Us
A current and comprehensive list of CCR's press releases, press statements, and case updates dating back to 2003.
This list can be ordered by date or name, and filtered by the issues to which the releases relate.
The search function may be more efficient when looking for specific releases.
More than a year ago the Supreme Court ruled in the Center for Constitutional Rights case Rasul v. Bush that the Guantanamo detainees have a right to file habeas corpus petitions in U.S. courts. Despite this fact, the government continues… Read More >>
In April 2001, Mohammed Jafar Alam applied for an employment certification under the 245-I LIFE Act, a crucial first step to gaining status for himself and his family; he is still waiting for approval. Mr. Alam registered as part of… Read More >>
On November 22, 2004, a group of protesters and bystanders wrongfully arrested during the Republican National Convention last August filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of the almost 2,000 who were wrongfully arrested and detained under filthy and toxic… Read More >>
On September 15, 2004 California Superior Court Judge Victoria Chaney rejected an attempt by Unocal Corp. to dismiss a lawsuit charging it is responsible for human rights abuses committed by the notoriously brutal Burmese military on behalf of Unocal’s Yadana… Read More >>
Two U.S. corporations conspired with U.S. officials to humiliate, torture and abuse persons detained by U.S. authorities in Iraq according to a class action lawsuit filed June 9, 2004, by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the Philadelphia law… Read More >>
In February 12, 2004, the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a multi-plaintiff federal lawsuit on behalf of protesters who were illegally arrested during an anti-war rally April 7, 2003, in New York. The suit charges that the New York Police… Read More >>
A district court judge declared an important provision of the USA Patriot Act unconstitutional because it is so vague that it “could be construed to include unequivocally pure speech and advocacy protected by the First Amendment.” The ruling is the… Read More >>