Court Cases

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.

In 2024, the Republican National Committee, the Nevada Republican Party, Donald J. Trump for President 2024, and an individual voter filed a lawsuit against the Nevada Secretary of State, challenging how the state maintains its voter rolls. The lawsuit claims that Nevada is not doing enough to remove noncitizens from the voter rolls and is asking the court to force major changes to how the state verifies voter eligibility and maintains voter registration records. We filed an amicus brief, in partnership with the Protect Democracy Project, raising concerns that the lawsuit seeks to rely on data that may not exist and verification methods that cannot reliably determine citizenship status. Our brief warns that replacing Nevada’s current system with untested and unreliable processes could result in eligible voters being wrongly flagged or removed from voter rolls. In August 2025, the court dismissed some of the plaintiffs’ claims, including claims brought under Nevada election law and the Nevada Constitution. However, the court allowed the plaintiffs’ Equal Protection and Due Process claims to move forward. As this case continues, the outcome could shape how Nevada maintains its voter rolls and administers elections ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

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.