Court Cases

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. On July 17, 2024, U.S. District Judge Miranda Du dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint, finding that they lacked standing to sue. The court noted that existing Nevada law governed which ballots were counted in the 2024 election. UPDATE: The plaintiffs have appealed the July ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where the case is still pending. States United is providing pro bono co-counsel for Secretary Aguilar.

The ACLU of Nevada has filed a motion to intervene in a lawsuit filed by the Citizen Outreach Foundation. The lawsuit seeks to remove over 11,000 registered voters from the voter rolls in Washoe County, seven of whom are ACLUNV members. The challenge is based on the use of the National Change of Address (NCOA) database, which the petitioners claim indicates that these voters no longer reside at their registered addresses. The ACLU of Nevada argues that this method of challenging voter eligibility is unlawful under both state and federal law, particularly because such voter roll purges cannot be conducted within 90 days of an election. Furthermore, the organization argues that removing voters solely based on NCOA data without personal knowledge of their residency violates Nevada’s legal standards. The ACLU is intervening to protect their right to vote and prevent unlawful disenfranchisement just weeks before the November 2024 presidential election. UPDATE: On October 11, 2024, the case was dismissed.

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. UPDATE: On February 19, 2025, a settlement was reached and the case was dismissed.  

Citizen Outreach Foundation seeks to remove over 19,000 registered voters from the Clark County voter rolls ahead of the November 2024 presidential election. The removals are based on National Change of Address (NCOA) data, which they claim shows these individuals are no longer residing at their registered addresses. The ACLU of Nevada (ACLUNV) has filed a motion to intervene in the case, arguing that removing voters based solely on NCOA data violates both federal and state laws, which prevent systemic voter roll maintenance within 90 days of an election. The ACLU also argues that these challenges do not meet the requirements under Nevada law. At least fourteen ACLU members are among the voters being challenged. If the requested relief is granted, thousands of eligible voters could be wrongfully purged from the voter rolls, impairing their right to vote by mail or altogether disenfranchising them just weeks before the election. The organization further asserts that such a decision would set a dangerous precedent, leading to mass, arbitrary voter challenges. ACLUNV seeks to ensure that the voter roll maintenance laws are followed, safeguarding the right to vote for all eligible voters in Clark County.

The ACLU of Nevada and Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice filed an amicus brief in Song Spencer & James Spencer v. City of Henderson, urging the Nevada Supreme Court to allow people to recover attorney’s fees as special damages in successful challenges in civil asset forfeiture cases when the government wrongfully seizes their property. Our amicus brief argues that Nevada law already allows recovery of attorney’s fees in cases when warranted, even when there is no law directly on point, and that principle should apply here, when someone is forced to sue the government to get their own property back. This case is a challenge to the constitutionality of civil forfeiture laws.

The ACLU of Nevada filed a lawsuit challenging Nevada's ban on Medicaid coverage for abortion, which discriminates against women and people who can become pregnant based on their sex in violation of the protections voters added to the Nevada Constitution. Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade last year, Nevadans turned out to the polls to overwhelmingly adopt an Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to the state constitution, ensuring equality under the law regardless of race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, and more. The lawsuit brought by Silver State Hope Fund — a Nevada nonprofit that offers financial assistance to help people pay for abortion, as well as travel, lodging, and childcare to ensure they can access care — challenges the state’s Medicaid coverage ban as a violation of Nevada’s ERA. The majority of Silver State’s clients have incomes that qualify for Medicaid. Nevada’s Medicaid program, managed by the Division of Health Care Financing and Policy, has set a mission to ensure equal access to health care by providing quality medical care for low-income individuals and families who otherwise may not be able to afford health care. Despite that mission, the program specifically denies coverage for abortion, and so the majority of Silver State Hope Fund’s clients cannot get full coverage for their reproductive health care needs. The abortion coverage ban reinforces sex-based inequalities by denying only women and those who can become pregnant the ability to make decisions about their health care options and reproductive futures. There are no similar restrictions on care typically accessed by men. The lawsuit requests that the state court order the Nevada Division of Health Care Financing and Policy to remove the abortion coverage ban in Nevada’s Medicaid program. UPDATE: On March 19, 2024, the court ruled in favor of the ACLU and our clients, blocking the state's abortion coverage ban.

During the 2024 Presidential Preference Primary, a nonpartisan observer who is also an ACLU of Nevada staff member was denied access to observe the election process by the Nye County Clerk's Office. The county implemented a policy that limited only one election observer per political affiliation, even when there was space available, violating Nevada law and the Nevada Constitution, which protects individuals’ right to observe voting, handling, and processing ballots. The ACLU of Nevada filed a lawsuit against Nye County for violating these rights by prohibiting them from observing the voting process. Our Nevada Constitution protects the right to access to information and access to observe government activities, ensuring there is transparency in our democratic processes. This case seeks to affirm the rights of Nevadans to uphold election transparency and prevent viewpoint discrimination in our democracy.

Despite the passage of the Nevada Medical Marijuana Act and the Initiative to Regulate and Tax Marijuana, the State, specifically the Nevada State Board of Pharmacy, has failed to take action to comport with the will of Nevada voters, the Nevada Constitution, and Nevada Revised Statutes.