Court Cases

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.

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.

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.

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.

The ACLU of Nevada filed a lawsuit on behalf of Lance Downes-Covington, who was unlawfully stopped and detained by Las Vegas City Marshals. In April 2023, Las Vegas Marshal Sergio Guzman stopped Lance Downes-Covington, citing an alleged traffic code violation. Despite complying with the marshals’ instructions, Downes-Covington was threatened with a handgun and a taser, forcibly handcuffed, and violently slammed to the ground. He was taken to the Las Vegas city jail and then transferred to University Medical Center to be treated for injuries received during the arrest. The charges against Downes-Covington were eventually dismissed. General traffic enforcement falls outside the Las Vegas marshals' jurisdiction, and their actions violated our client’s rights under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and under Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution. The complaint also alleges civil rights violations for excessive force, prolonged detention, and false arrest and imprisonment. Guzman and the Las Vegas marshals were named as plaintiffs in a separate, unaffiliated civil rights case in March. The Nevada Legislature this year did not move forward a proposed bill to adjust the jurisdiction and authority of municipal agencies such as the Las Vegas marshals. We are seeking an order from the court declaring that the Las Vegas City Marshals office misinterpreted the scope of its authority, as well as monetary damages and attorney fees.

The ACLU of Nevada, in collaboration with ACLU and the UNLV Immigration Clinic, filed an emergency lawsuit on behalf of its client Viloria Aviles, a Venezuelan man facing imminent deportation under a Proclamation issued by President Trump. The Proclamation invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a wartime statute historically used only during declared wars with foreign governments, to justify the summary removal of Venezuelan nationals accused of alleged gang ties. Aviles was at risk of being removed without notice or the opportunity to contest his designation. In April 2025, we secured an emergency order from the federal court prohibiting the government from deporting Aviles while his asylum claim proceeds in immigration court. The case is currently stayed until either the U.S. Supreme Court rules on a related Alien Enemies Act case or his asylum proceedings conclude.

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, 2024, 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.