Court Cases

This case arises out of a defamation lawsuit filed by Mr. Lazer, a white man, against Ms. Williams, a Black woman. Mr. Lazer represented Ms. Williams in a real estate transaction and, according to Ms. Williams, made statements that were racist and sexist during the course of the sale.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada Foundation filed this case to secure the release of two men who are being detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the Henderson Detention Center. Our plaintiffs are medically vulnerable and at risk of severe illness or even death because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The U.S. Constitution requires that detention facilities ensure the health and safety of the people in their care, but these facilities are unable to implement social distancing and other medical best practices to prevent exposure. The people housed at the Henderson Detention Center have already been exposed to COVID-19. Jail officials confirmed on March 28 that 13 individuals held in ICE detention there have been isolated in individual cells after they were transported by an ICE agent who later began to show symptoms of COVID-19. The only remedy to this constitutional issue is to release our plaintiffs.

The ACLU of Nevada submitted a public records request on June 15th asking for various records relating to lethal injection drugs and the Department of Corrections’ execution protocol, but the Department has refused to release any information prior to this execution. The writ petition seeks to force NDOC to release these records.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada and Perkins Coie LLP on Nov. 21, 2017, filed a lawsuit in the First Judicial District Court challenging State Sen. Michael Roberson’s anti-immigrant ballot initiative. Our clients in this case include a former Nevada sheriff, a civil rights activist, and a nonprofit organization that works with immigrant victims of crime, including domestic violence. The ACLU of Nevada's complaint argues the entire “Prevent Sanctuary Cities Initiative” - from the language of the proposed amendment to the description of effect - is misleading to voters. Even the term “sanctuary cities” is deceptive, pejorative, and lacks a legal definition. A hearing on the matter is scheduled for the morning of Jan. 5, 2018, in Carson City. Update: On May 16, 2018, the Nevada Supreme Court issued a favorable ruling, affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding.

UPDATE: On Aug. 3, the judge presiding over Davis v. Nevada has approved a stipulated consent judgment which will build upon last year’s legislative reform and ensure a true overhaul of the state’s public defense system. For a minimum of three years, a court-appointed monitor will ensure that Nevada complies with the terms of the judgment and fulfills its constitutional duty to guarantee the right to counsel for all. View the Notice of Settlement

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a group of parents, clergy, and other taxpayers, sought to prevent the state from diverting taxpayer dollars to primarily religious private schools. There were no restrictions on how participating schools, a majority of which are religious, could use the money: Many of the schools eligible to participate in the program use thoroughly religious curricula and textbooks; many require students, parents, or employees to be of a certain faith, attend a certain church, or sign pledges of faith; many of the schools also discriminate against LGBT students or employees and those who have had an abortion; and at least one school eligible to participate in the program uses corporal punishment to discipline students. We filed suit in District Court for Clark County, Nevada, in August 2015, arguing that the voucher program violated the Nevada Constitution’s prohibition on the use of public funds for any sectarian purpose and the state constitutional guarantee of a uniform system of common schools. The district court judge granted the state’s motion to dismiss and we appealed. In September 2016, the Nevada Supreme Court struck down the voucher program, holding that the legislature’s mechanism for funding the program violated the state constitution.