Court Cases

Featured Cases

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
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 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

52 Court Cases
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.
Court Case
Nov 21, 2025
Graphic with a dark blue and red overlay featuring a police car with flashing lights in a city at night. On the left, the white ACLU of Nevada logo appears. On the right, the text reads “ACLU of Nevada v. LVMPD” in a bold, serif font, divided by a vertical white line.
  • First Amendment|
  • +1 Issue

ACLU of Nevada v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

We are suing the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department to get public records about the full extent of its involvement with federal immigration enforcement.
Court Case
Nov 12, 2025
Blue-tinted graphic with the ACLU of Nevada logo and the text ‘Armendarez v. Henderson Municipal Court.’ The background shows a statue of Lady Justice holding scales.
  • Smart Justice

Armendarez v. Henderson Municipal Court (Amicus)

Court Case
Oct 15, 2025
Graphic with a blue overlay featuring a judge’s gavel resting beside a balance scale. On the left is the white ACLU of Nevada logo. On the right, separated by a vertical white line, the text reads “Lee v. State of Nevada” in a bold, serif font.
  • Smart Justice

Lee v. State of Nevada (Amicus)

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.
Court Case
Sep 23, 2025
Blue-tinted graphic with the ACLU of Nevada logo and the text ‘City of Sparks v. Bluth.’ The background shows the Sparks city sign and railing along a public walkway.
  • First Amendment|
  • +1 Issue

City of Sparks v. Bluth (Amicus)

In 2023, a Reno police officer pulled over a driver and took her cell phone, claiming he needed to verify her insurance coverage. Instead, he unlawfully accessed and copied intimate photographs of the driver without her knowledge or consent. Nine months later, Sparks police detectives came to her home, showed her the photos, and confirmed they were taken from her phone. The driver, Bluth, sued to get access to public records about the investigation, but the lower court found that the investigative and privacy interests outweigh the public and personal interests, even without reviewing the records privately. The court only provided records related to her individual case. We filed an amicus brief, alongside the Boyd School of Law’s Survivor Representation & Advocacy Clinic, supporting Bluth’s appeal. We’re asking the Nevada Supreme Court to overturn the lower court’s decision and make clear that the government can’t use victims’ rights as an excuse to avoid accountability.
Court Case
Sep 15, 2025
Blue-tinted graphic with the ACLU of Nevada logo and the text ‘Gervaski v. State of Nevada.’ The background shows a large crowd gathered for a protest or demonstration in a city park.
  • First Amendment|
  • +1 Issue

Gerwaski v. State of Nevada

We are representing Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas (SJP UNLV), a student group that protests Israel’s military actions in Palestine and exercises its First Amendment rights by organizing protests and advocating on social media, and has also urged UNLV administrators to stop supporting Palestinian people by not investing money in groups tied to Israel. We stepped in after another UNLV student who disagreed with SJP UNLV’s views sued the group, along with several other defendants, under the federal Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) and for intentional infliction of emotional distress, even though the student did not show how UNLV SJP assisted in terrorism or explain how they were harmed. We filed a motion to dismiss, asking the court to dismiss the case because SJP UNLV’s advocacy is protected by the First Amendment, and the student failed to provide sufficient facts related to claims of infliction of emotional distress. We also filed a second motion under Nevada’s anti-SLAAP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) laws, which protects people and groups from lawsuits meant to silence speech on public issues.
Court Case
May 20, 2025
Red-toned graphic with the ACLU of Nevada logo and the text ‘Ybarra v. Warden.’ The background shows a prison hallway lined with barred cells.
  • Equal Protection

Ybarra v. Warden (Amicus)

In 1979, appellant Robert Ybarra Jr. was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death by a jury. Mr. Ybarra lives with serious mental illness, and the jury that sentenced him to death was not instructed that it needed to find beyond a reasonable doubt that aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating ones, such as mental illness. Capital defendants who live with serious mental illness, like Mr. Ybarra, are more likely to be sentenced to death. This is because symptoms of their mental illness often impair trial and appellate proceedings, leading to unreliability in sentencing. The ACLU’s Capital Punishment Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Nevada, filed an amicus curiae brief arguing that Article 1, section 6 of the Nevada Constitution—which prohibits cruel or unusual punishment—bars the execution of individuals with serious mental illness. As the brief argues, executing capital defendants with serious mental illness is cruel and lacks penological justification. It further argues that executing capital defendants is unusual given evolving standards of decency and increased protections for individuals with mental illness. Amici urge the Court to recognize that executing capital defendants with serious mental illness is unconstitutional and to categorically exempt this population from execution.