All Cases


4 Court Cases
Court Case
May 18, 2026
Blue-toned graphic featuring the ACLU of Nevada logo on the left and the case title ‘State of Nevada v. Foote’ on the right. The background shows the Fremont Street Experience in downtown Las Vegas, including the overhead canopy, casino signs, and pedestrians walking along the street.
  • First Amendment

State of Nevada v. Foote

We are representing Fremont Street performer Toney Foote in a First Amendment challenge involving restrictions on street performers on the Fremont Street Experience pedestrian mall. Our client is a Michael Jackson impersonator who has performed on Fremont Street for almost a decade and was cited in October 2025 under a city ordinance for allegedly performing outside one of the designated six-foot performance circles used for street performers. We filed a motion seeking dismissal of the charge, arguing that the ordinance violates the First Amendment. Our motion argues that Fremont Street is a public forum where free speech protections are strongest, and that street performing is a protected expression. We also argue that the ordinance unfairly treats independent street performers differently from certain street performers affiliated with Fremont Street Experience. UPDATE: On June 3, 2026, the City of Las Vegas dismissed the charges against Toney Foote.
Court Case
May 13, 2026
Yellow and blue graphic with the ACLU of Nevada logo and the text ‘State of Nevada v. Polovina.’ The background shows a judge’s gavel and scales of justice.
  • First Amendment|
  • +1 Issue

State v. Polovina

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.
Court Case
Mar 4, 2026
Blue-toned graphic with the ACLU of Nevada logo and the text ‘City of Las Vegas v. Bellus.’ The background shows a judge’s gavel resting on a block with scales of justice behind it.
  • First Amendment|
  • +1 Issue

City of Las Vegas v. Bellus

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.
Court Case
Dec 9, 2024
Graphic with a red and blue overlay showing a street sign for “Las Vegas Blvd 3700” and a traffic light in the foreground. On the left is the white ACLU of Nevada logo. On the right, separated by a vertical white line, the text reads “Ramsay v. State of Nevada” in a bold, serif font.
  • First Amendment

Ramsay v. State of Nevada (Amicus)

A Clark County court is banning people from the “Resort Corridor,” an expansive geographical area defined by Clark County ordinances, as a condition of probation without explanation or analysis for why this condition was imposed. The probation condition infringes upon the First Amendment right to access a traditional public forum and the right to intrastate travel, protected in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Probation conditions that restrict fundamental rights activities are only justified if they are directly tied to a permissible objective for probation, and the restriction is no greater than reasonably necessary to meet that objective. In imposing this probation condition, a Clark County court failed to satisfy both obligations. Another concern raised in the amicus brief is that the streets and roadways throughout the "Resort Corridor" are public sidewalks and roadways that have historically been used for public assembly and debate. UPDATE: On December 9, 2024, the Court dismissed the case for procedural reasons and said it’s moot—meaning there’s nothing left to resolve. The court found that our client lacked standing to challenge the law itself because he had never been arrested, charged, or convicted under that specific ordinance. And since he's already done with probation, there’s no longer an active issue for the court to decide.