All Cases

3 Court Cases
Court Case
Oct 02, 2024
Graphic with a red and purple overlay showing a close-up of a marked election ballot with checkboxes and a pen. On the left is the white ACLU of Nevada logo. On the right, separated by a vertical white line, the text reads “Citizen Outreach Foundation v. Lorena Portillo” in a bold, serif font.
  • Voting Rights

Citizen Outreach Foundation v. Lorena Portillo

Citizen Outreach Foundation seeks to remove over 19,000 registered voters from the Clark County voter rolls ahead of the November 2024 presidential election. The removals are based on National Change of Address (NCOA) data, which they claim shows these individuals are no longer residing at their registered addresses. The ACLU of Nevada (ACLUNV) has filed a motion to intervene in the case, arguing that removing voters based solely on NCOA data violates both federal and state laws, which prevent systemic voter roll maintenance within 90 days of an election. The ACLU also argues that these challenges do not meet the requirements under Nevada law. At least fourteen ACLU members are among the voters being challenged. If the requested relief is granted, thousands of eligible voters could be wrongfully purged from the voter rolls, impairing their right to vote by mail or altogether disenfranchising them just weeks before the election. The organization further asserts that such a decision would set a dangerous precedent, leading to mass, arbitrary voter challenges. ACLUNV seeks to ensure that the voter roll maintenance laws are followed, safeguarding the right to vote for all eligible voters in Clark County.
Court Case
Oct 01, 2024
Graphic with a red and purple overlay showing blurred election-related documents in the background. On the left is the white ACLU of Nevada logo. On the right, separated by a vertical white line, the text reads “Citizen Outreach Foundation v. Cari-Ann Burgess” in a bold, serif font.
  • Voting Rights

Citizen Outreach Foundation v. Cari-Ann Burgess

The ACLU of Nevada has filed a motion to intervene in a lawsuit filed by the Citizen Outreach Foundation. The lawsuit seeks to remove over 19,000 registered voters from the voter rolls in Clark County, seven of whom are ACLUNV members. The challenge is based on the use of the National Change of Address (NCOA) database, which the petitioners claim indicates that these voters no longer reside at their registered addresses. The ACLU of Nevada argues that this method of challenging voter eligibility is unlawful under both state and federal law, particularly because such voter roll purges cannot be conducted within 90 days of an election. Furthermore, the organization argues that removing voters solely based on NCOA data without personal knowledge of their residency violates Nevada’s legal standards. The ACLU is intervening to protect their right to vote and prevent unlawful disenfranchisement just weeks before the November 2024 presidential election.
Court Case
Jun 07, 2019
Graphic with a warm red overlay featuring the Statue of Liberty. On the left is the white ACLU of Nevada logo. On the right, the text reads “Al Falahi v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Service” in a bold, serif font.

Al Falahi v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Service

The ACLU of Nevada and Prudhomme Law Office filed a petition for judicial review on December 16, 2016, with the Nevada District Court on behalf of Mr. Mohammad Al Falahi, seeking a de novo review of the denial of Mr. Al Falahi’s naturalization application by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The petition alleges that Mr. Al Falahi is otherwise eligible for citizenship, but his application was denied solely because USCIS surreptitiously subjected him to the unconstitutional Controlled Application Review Resolution Program (CARRP). CARRP is a little-known, unconstitutional program that disproportionally targets citizenship applicants from Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and South Asian communities. Under CARRP, USCIS unjustifiably labels law-abiding citizenship applicants as “national security concerns” based on lawful religious activity, national origin, and innocuous associations. Applications subject to CARRP are subject to substantial delays and are ultimately denied for pretextual reasons, all without ever being told why their applications were treated differently than other applicants.