Court Cases

In yet another result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of the Roe v. Wade decision, in July 2024, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lifted an injunction against a 1985 Nevada law requiring parental notification for abortion procedures for minors. Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, a 501(c)3 health care provider, quickly filed litigation to block the notification law from negatively affecting access to abortion care in Nevada. ACLU and ACLU of Nevada argue in a new amicus brief that a lower court ruling used incorrect legal standards. The amicus brief also examines the procedures that are required under the 1985 law, including interviews and court hearings for young people seeking judicial bypass. Such processes differ from county to county, with some courts having no processes in place at all. UPDATE: On May 28, 2026, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, reversed the district court's decision, and ordered the lower court to grant a preliminary injunction, blocking enforcement of SB510.

Jordan Polovina is a cellist and street performer who was cited by police for playing music on a pedestrian bridge on the Las Vegas Strip. While officers claimed Polovina violated a rule against stopping or standing in a pedestrian area, dozens of other people were standing in the same space before, during, and after the citation and were not cited. Polovina was cited under a county ordinance that makes it a misdemeanor to (1) stop or stand within any Pedestrian Flow Zone, or (2) intentionally causing another person who is within a Pedestrian Flow Zone to stop or stand. A conviction can carry jail time for up to six months of a fine of up to $1,000. We’re asking the court to dismiss the charge against Polovina because he was singled out for playing music, an activity protected by the First Amendment. Law enforcement targeted him for his expression, rather than enforcing the rule equally. In addition to this case, the ACLU of Nevada represents Polovina in a related civil lawsuit challenging the same ordinance. The lawsuit, McAllister v. Clark County, argues that the ordinance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the right to due process. UPDATE: On May 13, 2026, the charges against Mr. Polovina were dismissed.

As Southern Nevada high school seniors headed toward graduation, many of the students were at risk of having their First Amendment rights violated under a Clark County School District policy adopted in March that added new restrictions on cap and gown decorations and banned objects and adornments that “constitute proselytizing speech.” Our civil rights attorneys say that the policy has led to individual schools creating their own guidelines, which even contradict themselves. The complaint says, for example, that Canyon Springs High School and Del Sol Academy have communicated both that all cap decorations will be banned and that students can adorn their caps with decorations that have religious or cultural significance. Las Vegas High School is going even further and requiring students to submit pictures of decorations and accessories for advanced approval.

Sebastian Filutowski sold his Camaro in a legitimate transaction and received payment in cryptocurrency, which he converted to U.S. dollars. LVMPD later froze and seized more than $50,000 from his bank account through its Cyber Investigative Group policy. Under that policy, detectives can seek a warrant without notifying the property owner, classify the person as a “secondary victim,” and transfer the money to another person without filing a forfeiture case or providing an adversarial hearing. Filutowski filed a lawsuit seeking the return of his property and an order blocking law enforcement from using property seizure practices that deny people due process. The district court ordered LVMPD to return his money but denied his request for a permanent injunction. Filutowski appealed that decision to the Nevada Supreme Court. We filed an amicus brief, in partnership with Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice, because law enforcement should not be allowed to bypass due process through internal policies that function like civil forfeiture while avoiding forfeiture safeguards. In our brief, we argue that LVMPD’s Cyber Investigative Group policy has the same real-world impact as civil forfeiture: a person loses access to their property and must fight the government to recover it. We also argue that the harm occurs when the property is taken, not only after someone has exhausted every possible legal remedy. Returning money months later does not erase the violation or the cost of being forced to litigate for basic constitutional protections.

We're challenging Clark County's pedestrian flow zone ordinance for its vague language that allows LVMPD to selectively enforce and, in effect, selectively target people. Our client uses a manual wheelchair, and under this ordinance, could be charged with a misdemeanor for stopping to take a break. In January 2024, the Clark County Commission voted to establish pedestrian flow zones on the pedestrian bridges at the Las Vegas Strip and charge people with a misdemeanor for stopping or standing on these bridges.

We’re defending Alexander Bellus, a man who was cited by the City of Las Vegas for allegedly distributing food and water at a public park to people experiencing homelessness as part of his religious practice.

In 2023, a Reno police officer pulled over a driver and took her cell phone, claiming he needed to verify her insurance coverage. Instead, he unlawfully accessed and copied intimate photographs of the driver without her knowledge or consent. Nine months later, Sparks police detectives came to her home, showed her the photos, and confirmed they were taken from her phone. The driver, Bluth, sued to get access to public records about the investigation, but the lower court found that the investigative and privacy interests outweigh the public and personal interests, even without reviewing the records privately. The court only provided records related to her individual case. We filed an amicus brief, alongside the Boyd School of Law’s Survivor Representation & Advocacy Clinic, supporting Bluth’s appeal. We’re asking the Nevada Supreme Court to overturn the lower court’s decision and make clear that the government can’t use victims’ rights as an excuse to avoid accountability.

We are representing Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas (SJP UNLV), a student group that protests Israel’s military actions in Palestine and exercises its First Amendment rights by organizing protests and advocating on social media, and has also urged UNLV administrators to stop supporting Palestinian people by not investing money in groups tied to Israel. We stepped in after another UNLV student who disagreed with SJP UNLV’s views sued the group, along with several other defendants, under the federal Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) and for intentional infliction of emotional distress, even though the student did not show how UNLV SJP assisted in terrorism or explain how they were harmed. We filed a motion to dismiss, asking the court to dismiss the case because SJP UNLV’s advocacy is protected by the First Amendment, and the student failed to provide sufficient facts related to claims of infliction of emotional distress. We also filed a second motion under Nevada’s anti-SLAAP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) laws, which protects people and groups from lawsuits meant to silence speech on public issues.

In 1979, appellant Robert Ybarra Jr. was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death by a jury. Mr. Ybarra lives with serious mental illness, and the jury that sentenced him to death was not instructed that it needed to find beyond a reasonable doubt that aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating ones, such as mental illness. Capital defendants who live with serious mental illness, like Mr. Ybarra, are more likely to be sentenced to death. This is because symptoms of their mental illness often impair trial and appellate proceedings, leading to unreliability in sentencing. The ACLU’s Capital Punishment Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Nevada, filed an amicus curiae brief arguing that Article 1, section 6 of the Nevada Constitution—which prohibits cruel or unusual punishment—bars the execution of individuals with serious mental illness. As the brief argues, executing capital defendants with serious mental illness is cruel and lacks penological justification. It further argues that executing capital defendants is unusual given evolving standards of decency and increased protections for individuals with mental illness. Amici urge the Court to recognize that executing capital defendants with serious mental illness is unconstitutional and to categorically exempt this population from execution.