Court Cases

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.

We filed a lawsuit challenging the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department’s (LVMPD) 287(g) agreement with ICE. That agreement allows ICE to use local law enforcement to assist in carrying out its federal immigration enforcement agenda.

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.

The ACLU of Nevada filed an amicus brief urging the Nevada Supreme Court to strengthen its interpretation of the Equal Rights Amendment to prevent racial discrimination within the courts. A Batson challenge is an objection raised by a lawyer during jury selection when they believe the other side is excluding a potential juror because of their race. Under the Nevada Supreme Court decision in Dixon v. State, Batson challenges are not applicable when the excluded juror is an alternate who did not actively deliberate. Our amicus argues that the Batson process should prohibit a party from striking a juror if that party offers a race-based justification, even if that juror would have been an uncalled alternate. Ultimately, the panel of judges decided that it was a harmless error, a decision unfavorable to our amicus brief.

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.

Nevada's "mailbox deadline" allows mail ballots received up to four business days after Election Day to be counted to account for the practical shortcomings of USPS policies and practices. For example, postmarks are not required on all mailings and are designed to prevent reuse of postage, and mail ballot postmarks may become smudged or illegible. To prevent arbitrary disenfranchisement of voters, mail ballots received by 5 p.m. on the third day after election day that are not clearly postmarked by Election Day are still counted. The Republican National Committee (RNC) claims that this deadline violates federal law because there is only one specific day recognized by federal law as the national election day. We filed an amicus brief asking the court to dismiss the case as Nevada's "mailbox deadline" is a valid exercise of the state's delegated authority over federal elections by the Electoral Count Reform Act, which does not prohibit state laws that allow for timely cast ballots to be received and counted in the days following the election. Furthermore, there are also no federal laws prohibiting or conflicting with Nevada's Mailbox Deadline Laws.

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.

In May 2024, Laura Griffin, a Muslim woman, was forcibly removed from her home by LVMPD during an eviction. While being arrested, Ms. Griffin explained she is Muslim and repeatedly asked for and was denied her religious head covering. During the course of her arrest, transport, and booking, Ms. Griffin requested her head covering over three dozen times. Officers not only ignored her requests but also actively denied her access to her head covering, even when it was brought to the police station by her son. The ACLU of Nevada filed a lawsuit against LVMPD for violating Ms. Griffin’s rights under the U.S. Constitution. In addition to providing damages for the harm caused to Ms. Griffin, the LVMPD adopted policies and provided training to ensure that people who are arrested are afforded religious accommodations and that such mistreatment does not happen again.