Court Cases

In conjunction with the national ACLU, we’ve filed a motion to intervene in this case to protect Nevada voters and ensure people can participate in our democracy freely, safely, and without fear.

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.

We are suing the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department to get public records about the full extent of its involvement with federal immigration enforcement.

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.

The ACLU of Nevada, alongside Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice, filed an amicus brief asking the court to strengthen due process protections and ensure defendants receive fair trials. In this case, the state made mid-trial disclosures of critical evidence—information that could have helped the defense. The state’s delayed disclosure hindered the defense’s ability to prepare an effective case, and the defendant is now asking that his conviction be reversed due to the state’s failure to meet its legal obligations to disclose evidence in a timely manner. Our amicus brief argues that the convictions should be overturned when delays in the disclosure of evidence violate a defendant’s right to Due Process, as well as when the State, in bad faith, fails to comply with Nevada discovery laws. UPDATE: On September 12, 2025, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision in favor of the State of Nevada.

The Clark County Detention Center (CCDC) is the largest jail in Nevada, housing thousands of people every year. The ACLU of Nevada has been investigating the treatment of people who are deaf and detained at the Detention Center since April 2021. Based on our investigation, we have determined that the Clark County Detention Center regularly denies basic aids and services to deaf people, including sign language, interpreters, videophones, and visual aids. These services are denied for even the most important communication needs, such as classes meant to rehabilitate prisoners, medical appointments, religious services, and even fire alarms. Failure to provide these services functionally places deaf people detained at CCDC in solitary confinement, unable to communicate with staff, other people who are detained, and anyone outside the facility. Based upon records we've received through public records requests, we know the Detention Center is aware it must offer these services, but still fails to do so. Mr. Jones, our client, is a deaf person who has spent over two years in CCDC. Again and again, he requested the services he is entitled to under federal law, and again and again, he was denied, rendering him unable to participate in group therapy, religious services, or other rehabilitative opportunities. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the United States Constitution, and the Nevada Constitution, the Detention Center is obligated to comply and offer appropriate aids and services to deaf people detained at the facility. Together, we are working to make sure he, nor any other person who is deaf and detained in jail, is treated that way again

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. UPDATE: On January 13, 2025, the Supreme Court of Nevada 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. UPDATE: On December 9, 2025, the Court dismissed the case for procedural reasons and said it’s moot—meaning there’s nothing left to resolve. The court found that our client lacked standing to challenge the law itself because he had never been arrested, charged, or convicted under that specific ordinance. And since he's already done with probation, there’s no longer an active issue for the court to decide.