• About
    • Staff
    • Board of Directors
    • Contact Us
  • Know Your Rights
    • All Know Your Rights
    • Immigrants' Rights
    • Protesters' Rights
    • Voting Rights
    • Stopped by Police
  • Get Involved
    • Take Action Now
    • Volunteer with Us
    • Emerging Leaders
    • Campus People Power
  • Our Work
    • Nevada News
    • Court Cases
  • Join
  • Donate
    • Donate
  • Donate
    • Donate

Court Cases

  • Share this page
      • Dismissed
      • Favorable Ruling
      • Filed
      • Lost
      • Settled
      • Victory!
      • People Impacted by Discrimination
      • Voting Rights
      • Economic Justice
      • Education Equity
      • Smart Justice
      • Health Equity
      • First Amendment
Filter by Issue: Smart Justice
    • Dismissed
    • Favorable Ruling
    • Filed
    • Lost
    • Settled
    • Victory!
    • People Impacted by Discrimination
    • Voting Rights
    • Economic Justice
    • Education Equity
    • Smart Justice
    • Health Equity
    • First Amendment

All Cases

1 Court Case
Court Case
May 30, 2023
Graphic with a yellow and green overlay showing a close-up of a judge's gavel. On the left is the white ACLU of Nevada logo. On the right, the text reads “Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners v. Valentine” in a bold, serif font.
  • Smart Justice

Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners v. Valentine

In this joint filing by the ACLU of Nevada and Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice, we argue that the state can't make it harder for people working toward rehabilitation to reenter society by imposing excessive fines and fees if they are already meeting the requirements of their parole. The Nevada Division of Parole and Probation recommends early discharge from parole if a supervised person meets all the conditions in state law. One condition requires the person to be current with the supervision fees required by probation or parole. A Clark County Court found that the subject of this case, Valentine, fulfilled this condition and had proven he experienced economic hardship and was eligible for relief. On appeal, the state claims that Valentine was ineligible for early discharge because he had not paid off the entire balance of supervision fees. No one disputes that Valentine paid his fees on time, but the parole agency diverted those payments to cover his outstanding restitution balance instead. In the amicus brief, we pointed out that: State law only requires a person to be current with supervision fee payments, not that they are paid them off in full. The Division of Parole and Probation has no legal basis to transfer a person's supervision fees to restitution. There was no court order and no statute authorizing the agency to do it.
Court Case
May 30, 2023
Graphic with a yellow and green overlay showing a close-up of a judge's gavel. On the left is the white ACLU of Nevada logo. On the right, the text reads “Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners v. Valentine” in a bold, serif font.
Court Case
May 30, 2023
  • Smart Justice

Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners v. Valentine

In this joint filing by the ACLU of Nevada and Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice, we argue that the state can't make it harder for people working toward rehabilitation to reenter society by imposing excessive fines and fees if they are already meeting the requirements of their parole. The Nevada Division of Parole and Probation recommends early discharge from parole if a supervised person meets all the conditions in state law. One condition requires the person to be current with the supervision fees required by probation or parole. A Clark County Court found that the subject of this case, Valentine, fulfilled this condition and had proven he experienced economic hardship and was eligible for relief. On appeal, the state claims that Valentine was ineligible for early discharge because he had not paid off the entire balance of supervision fees. No one disputes that Valentine paid his fees on time, but the parole agency diverted those payments to cover his outstanding restitution balance instead. In the amicus brief, we pointed out that: State law only requires a person to be current with supervision fee payments, not that they are paid them off in full. The Division of Parole and Probation has no legal basis to transfer a person's supervision fees to restitution. There was no court order and no statute authorizing the agency to do it.
Explore Case

Stay Informed

Sign up to be the first to hear about how to take action.

By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU’s privacy statement.

By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU’s privacy statement.

  • Careers
  • Donate
  • Press Releases
  • Contact Us

© 2025 ACLU of Nevada

  • User Agreement
  • Privacy Statement
  • Website Accessibility