Court Cases

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.

We filed a class action lawsuit, in collaboration with the ACLU and the UNLV Immigration Clinic, against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), challenging a new federal policy that unlawfully denied immigrants their right to a bond hearing. For decades, people who were living in the U.S. and later detained by immigration authorities were entitled to a bond hearing under federal law. The DHS has now reversed this precedent by reclassifying these longtime residents as “applicants for admission,” thereby stripping them of their right to ask a judge for release. Now, under this new policy, anyone who entered the United States without inspection is detained while their immigration case moves forward without the opportunity for a bond hearing, also known as a custody redetermination hearing. This is a direct attack on due process. People who have lived in Nevada for years are now being held for prolonged periods of time in civil detention facilities without knowing when, or if, they’ll ever see a judge. Our class action seeks to reaffirm the right to a bond hearing for immigrants arrested inside of the United States and prevent them from being unlawfully detained without the possibility of release and in violation of their due process rights.

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.

In NYT v. Second Judicial District Court, multiple national media organizations, including The New York Times, CNN, NPR, and others, challenged a Nevada district court’s decision to seal nearly all hearings and filings in a high-profile case related to Rupert Murdoch’s trust. The district court’s ruling directly contradicts the Nevada Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment right to access civil proceedings found in Falconi v. Eighth Judicial District Court. The ACLU of Nevada, in partnership with Holland and Hart, filed an amicus brief urging the Nevada Supreme Court to reverse the lower court’s decision and affirm the public’s constitutional right to access court proceedings.

The ACLU of Nevada and Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice filed an amicus brief in Song Spencer & James Spencer v. City of Henderson, urging the Nevada Supreme Court to allow people to recover attorney’s fees as special damages in successful challenges in civil asset forfeiture cases when the government wrongfully seizes their property. Our amicus brief argues that Nevada law already allows recovery of attorney’s fees in cases when warranted, even when there is no law directly on point, and that principle should apply here, when someone is forced to sue the government to get their own property back. This case is a challenge to the constitutionality of civil forfeiture laws.

ACLU of Nevada, alongside the Campaign Legal Center (CLC), filed an amicus brief asking the court to dismiss a case challenging Nevada's efforts to maintain its voter rolls. The case, Republican National Committee v. Aguilar, was filed against Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar by The Republican National Committee, the Nevada Republican Party, and a Nevada voter, claiming the state must be violating its obligations under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) because certain misleading metrics show more registered voters than eligible voters in some counties. The amicus brief explains that the lawsuit is based on deeply flawed and misleading metrics that have been pieced together by unreliable and inaccurate measures of voter registration rates and that have been repeatedly rebuked by federal courts. The voter registration numbers they rely on are taken from a single recent snapshot of the state's voter roll but use an outdated census of the citizen voting age population for comparison. Unfortunately, this lawsuit is just one of several cases recently filed across the country with claims under the NVRA and is part of a years-long pattern to bully states into administering voter roll purges beyond what the law requires. Without proper guardrails, when states rush to purge voters, eligible voters, in many cases, are kicked off the rolls and disenfranchised. These lawsuits are based on false information and only erodes the public's trust and integrity in our elections.

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.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada filed this case on behalf of eleven individuals whose constitutional rights were violated by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the Rio Hotel. On August 19, 2018, our plaintiffs were having a birthday celebration at the Rio Hotel. Each of the 34 guests in attendance that evening is Black. LVMPD, aided by Rio staff, stormed in with no warrant and no reason to believe that any crime was being committed. Despite having no reasonable suspicion, LVMPD officers handcuffed and searched every single guest in attendance. Each guest was made to sit in the hallway of the Rio handcuffed with no access to food, water, or restroom facilities for up to 6 hours. LVMPD alleged that the birthday party was a “gang party,” but no guest was arrested for any criminal gang activity. We’re suing to end LVMPD’s racially discriminatory practice of indiscriminately and unlawfully detaining and searching individuals in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.