Armendarez v. Henderson Municipal Court (Amicus)

We filed an amicus brief, in partnership with the Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice and the Clark County Public Defender’s Office, challenging the Henderson Municipal Court’s attempt to eliminate pretrial release hearings. The municipal court exceeded its authority by declaring a state law, NRS.178.4849, unconstitutional, a power the court does not have, and in the process, violated the defendant’s rights.

The court claimed the law conflicted with Marsy’s Law, which protects crime victims’ rights. But Marsy’s Law gives victims the choice to request notice of court proceedings. The court ignored that choice and wrongfully focused on whether victims were successfully reached, rather than whether reasonable efforts were made.

The court also blamed its own lack of resources for failing to meet legal requirements. Administrative problems, however, do not justify keeping people in jail longer or taking away their constitutional rights.

Ultimately, the amicus seeks to strike down Henderson Municipal Court’s self-afforded expansion of power, which they used to violate the rights of defendants by exploiting victim rights.

On November 11, 2025, we filed another amicus brief with the Nevada Supreme Court after the Henderson Municipal Court appealed the decision that blocked its attempt to strike down the 48-hour bail hearing law. We urged the Court to protect victims’ rights without allowing the government to misuse those rights to weaken constitutional protections. Marsy’s Law exists to empower victims, not give courts or prosecutors more power over defendants.

We also point out that the City could reduce harm by focusing on serious cases with victims instead of prosecuting low-level, victimless offenses. The City can also do more to inform victims of their rights through clear guidance, public resources, and direct outreach.

The ACLU of Nevada does not represent the parties in this case, and our involvement is limited to filing an amicus curiae brief, also known as a “friend of the court” brief, which allows us to share legal arguments, policy expertise, and broader civil liberties perspectives that may assist the court in making its decision. We file these briefs in cases that may have significant implications for constitutional rights and civil liberties, even when we are not directly representing the client or parties named in the lawsuit.