Court Cases

Filter by Status:

Featured Cases

Court Case
Nov 25, 2025
Graphic with the ACLU of Nevada logo on the left and text reading ‘Morais-Hechavarria v. LVMPD’ on the right. In the background, a red and blue tinted photo shows a Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department patrol vehicle with its logo visible on the door.
  • Immigrants' Rights

Morais-Hechavarria v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

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.
Court Case
Apr 17, 2026
Graphic with a maroon overlay featuring the statue of Lady Justice holding scales 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 “ACLU of Nevada v. Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles” in a bold, serif font.
  • First Amendment|
  • +1 Issue

ACLU of Nevada v. Department of Motor Vehicles

We’re suing the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) for violating Nevada’s public records laws by refusing to release records related to their communications with ICE.
Court Case
Apr 23, 2026
Graphic with a dark blue and red overlay showing a school bus parked on a suburban street. On the left is the white ACLU of Nevada logo. On the right, separated by a vertical white line, the text reads “ACLU of Nevada v. CCSD” in a bold, serif font.
  • First Amendment

ACLU of Nevada v. Clark County School District

In February, Durango High School students were attacked by CCSD police, and video of the incident was captured by a bystander. CCSD continues to stonewall the release of public records related to the incident. The ACLU of Nevada is representing two of the students attacked in the incident. The ACLU of Nevada filed for a writ of mandamus in a Clark County court in order to force the Clark County School District to release records that the civil rights nonprofit is entitled to. A writ of mandamus is a legal action meant to compel a government actor to follow the law. In February, Durango High School students were attacked by CCSD police for recording officers in the community. Video of the incident captured by a bystander has been shared widely throughout Nevada — including before the Legislature — but despite persistent requests from the news media and others, the school district continues to stonewall the release of public records related to the incident, such as body-worn camera footage and incident reports. Even the ACLU of Nevada, which is representing two teenagers who were attacked in the incident, has been denied the records. In March, the ACLUNV announced it was giving the school district 30 days to comply with the law or the nonprofit would file legal action. CCSD has failed to produce the records for the teenagers’ attorneys. On March 26, 2026, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that investigative files related to internal investigations are confidential under state law and therefore exempt from disclosure under the Nevada Public Records Act. UPDATE: On April 23, 2026, ACLUNV filed a petition for en banc reconsideration.

All Cases

49 Court Cases
Court Case
May 28, 2026
Graphic featuring the ACLU of Nevada logo on the left and the case title ‘Planned Parenthood Mar Monte v. State of Nevada’ on the right. The background is tinted magenta and shows the Nevada Supreme Court building.
  • Equal Protection|
  • +1 Issue

Planned Parenthood Mar Monte v. Nevada (Amicus)

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. UPDATE: On May 28, 2026, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, reversed the district court's decision, and ordered the lower court to grant a preliminary injunction, blocking enforcement of SB510.
Court Case
May 18, 2026
Blue-toned graphic featuring the ACLU of Nevada logo on the left and the case title ‘State of Nevada v. Foote’ on the right. The background shows the Fremont Street Experience in downtown Las Vegas, including the overhead canopy, casino signs, and pedestrians walking along the street.
  • First Amendment

State of Nevada v. Foote

We are representing Fremont Street performer Toney Foote in a First Amendment challenge involving restrictions on street performers on the Fremont Street Experience pedestrian mall. Our client is a Michael Jackson impersonator who has performed on Fremont Street for almost a decade and was cited in October 2025 under a city ordinance for allegedly performing outside one of the designated six-foot performance circles used for street performers. We filed a motion seeking dismissal of the charge, arguing that the ordinance violates the First Amendment. Our motion argues that Fremont Street is a public forum where free speech protections are strongest, and that street performing is a protected expression. We also argue that the ordinance unfairly treats independent street performers differently from certain street performers affiliated with Fremont Street Experience.
Court Case
May 07, 2026
Graphic with a green overlay showing students raising graduation caps in celebration. On the left is the white ACLU of Nevada logo. On the right, separated by a vertical white line, the text reads “ACLU of Nevada v. CCSD” in a bold, serif font.
  • First Amendment|
  • +2 Issues

ACLU of Nevada v Clark County School District

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.
Court Case
Apr 22, 2026
Graphic featuring the ACLU of Nevada logo on the left and the case title ‘Jacobo-Ramirez et al. v. Mullin’ on the right. The background shows a blurred image of a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services document, tinted in blue.
  • Immigrants' Rights

Jacobo-Ramirez et al. v. Mullin

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. UPDATE: On March 26, 2026, a federal court granted partial summary judgment, ruling that the Department of Homeland Security's mandatory detention policies are unlawful, restoring access to bond hearings for undocumented immigrants.
Court Case
Apr 03, 2026
Graphic with a blue and red overlay featuring a pedestrian bridge over a Las Vegas street. On the left is the white ACLU of Nevada logo. On the right, the text reads “McAllister v. Clark County” in a bold, serif font.
  • First Amendment|
  • +1 Issue

McAllister v. Clark County

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.
Court Case
Mar 20, 2026
Graphic featuring the ACLU of Nevada logo on the left and the case title ‘United States of America v. Aguilar’ on the right. The blue-tinted background shows a statue of Lady Justice holding scales.
  • Voting Rights

United States of America v. Aguilar

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.
Court Case
Mar 04, 2026
Blue-toned graphic with the ACLU of Nevada logo and the text ‘City of Las Vegas v. Bellus.’ The background shows a judge’s gavel resting on a block with scales of justice behind it.
  • First Amendment|
  • +1 Issue

City of Las Vegas v. Bellus

We’re defending Alexander Bellus, a man who was cited by the City of Las Vegas for allegedly distributing food and water at a public park to people experiencing homelessness as part of his religious practice.
Court Case
Feb 19, 2026
Red-toned graphic featuring the ACLU of Nevada logo and the text ‘Feazell v. Bean.’ The background shows a dimly lit prison hallway with a single barred cell door at the end.
  • Smart Justice

Feazell v. Bean (Amicus)

Doneale Feazell was just 18 years old when he was accused of committing a homicide and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging his unconstitutional detention. Alongside the Juvenile Law Center, we filed an amicus brief in support of his petition, arguing that sentencing an 18-year-old to die in prison violates the Nevada Constitution's ban on cruel or unusual punishment. Nevada’s Constitution provides stronger protections than the federal standard. While the Eighth Amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment,” Nevada prohibits punishment that is “cruel or unusual.” Courts in other states have relied on similar language to strike down life without parole sentences for older adolescents, including those up to age 20. Research shows that young people in this age group share key developmental traits with those under 18, including a greater capacity for growth and change. Because of this, states across the country are expanding protections, including access to parole and resentencing. Nevada courts should do the same. Given this growing body of research and legal precedent, Nevada courts should recognize that sentencing young people like Feazell to die in prison is unconstitutional.
Court Case
Jan 12, 2026
Red-tinted graphic featuring the ACLU of Nevada logo and the text ‘Baggett v. Bean.’ The background shows a row of prison cells with barred doors along a corridor,
  • Smart Justice

Baggett v. Bean (Amicus)

Despite only being 19 when accused of murder, Johnny Baggett was sentenced to two consecutive life terms without the possibility of parole. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging his unconstitutional detention and raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel that prevented him from proving his innocence. In conjunction with the Juvenile Law Center, we filed an amicus brief in support of his petition, arguing that sentencing a 19-year-old to life without parole violates the Nevada Constitution's ban on cruel or unusual punishment. The Nevada Constitution provides stronger protections than the federal standard. While the Eighth Amendment prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment," Nevada prohibits punishment that is "cruel or unusual." Courts in other states have relied on similar language to strike down life without parole sentences for older adolescents, including those up to age 20. Research shows that young people in this age group share key developmental traits with those under 18, including a greater capacity for growth and change. Because of this, states across the country are expanding protections, including access to parole and resentencing. Given this growing body of research and legal precedent, Nevada courts should recognize that sentencing young people like Baggett to die in prison is unconstitutional.