Court Cases

The ACLU of Nevada and the Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice filed an amicus brief in Aldape v. State, a case on appeal before the Nevada Supreme Court, discussing the importance of the internet to free speech and the First Amendment rights of people released on probation. UPDATE: On September 28, 2023, the Supreme Court of Nevada issued a favorable ruling, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

In this joint filing by the ACLU of Nevada and Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice, we argue that the state can't make it harder for people working toward rehabilitation to reenter society by imposing excessive fines and fees if they are already meeting the requirements of their parole. The Nevada Division of Parole and Probation recommends early discharge from parole if a supervised person meets all applicable state law conditions. One condition requires the person to be current with the supervision fees required by probation or parole. A Clark County Court found that the subject of this case, Valentine, fulfilled this condition and had proven he experienced economic hardship and was eligible for relief. On appeal, the state claims that Valentine was ineligible for early discharge because he had not paid off the entire balance of supervision fees. No one disputes that Valentine paid his fees on time, but the parole agency diverted those payments to cover his outstanding restitution balance instead. In the amicus brief, we pointed out that: State law only requires a person to be current with supervision fee payments, not that they are paid off in full. The Division of Parole and Probation has no legal basis to transfer a person's supervision fees to restitution. There was no court order and no statute authorizing the agency to do it. UPDATE: On March 28, 2024, the Court dismissed the case on procedural grounds.

The ACLU of Nevada is representing seven incarcerated firefighters who were badly burned while working as wildland firefighters as part of a program in which the Nevada Division of Forestry and the Nevada Department of Corrections press incarcerated people into dangerous service on behalf of the state.

On Oct. 4, 2022, the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada filed a lawsuit against Nye County to prevent the county from moving forward with its proposed unlawful hand-counting scheme during this year’s elections. We are representing Nye County voters who risk having their freedom to vote suppressed by the county’s proposed procedures for this year’s election. The case is ACLU of Nevada v. Nye County, Case No. CV22-0503. We are asking the Fifth Judicial District court to prohibit the county from publicly announcing the selected candidates on each ballot prior to the close of polls on Election Day, from limiting the use of ADA touch screens to individuals with so-called “special needs,” from allowing election workers to ask about a voter’s disability or turn away otherwise eligible voters based on arbitrary decision making, and from using “stringent signature verifications” that violate state law. UPDATE: On November 15, 2022, the Supreme Court of Nevada denied issuing a ruling to stop Nye County from conducting a hand-count of ballots received in the 2022 midterm election.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada filed a lawsuit against Fremont Street Experience, LLC, and the city of Las Vegas in order to protect First Amendment rights on this important public forum. Fremont Street remains a public street. The case is Gordon v. City of Las Vegas, Case No. 2:22-cv-01446-RFB-EJY.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada filed a lawsuit to protect the public’s right to access family court proceedings. Nearly half of the district courts in Clark County are family courts, but a recent rule in the Eighth Judicial District Court allows for closing court proceedings to the public without cause.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada Foundation seeks to restore the ability of North Las Vegas residents to elect a municipal court judge of their choosing. On Feb. 17, the city of North Las Vegas adopted Ordinance No. 3060, creating a new municipal court department and appointing a judge, Christopher Lee, to a 6-year term without any election. The ordinance directly violates the North Las Vegas City Charter, approved by the Nevada Legislature, which mandates that when the city appoints a judge to fill a vacant position in the Municipal Court, “[n]o such appointment extends beyond the first day of the month following the next general municipal election, at which election the office must be filled for the remaining unexpired term.” The next elections to be held in the City of North Las Vegas are scheduled for June and November of 2022, 4 years and two full election cycles before the appointment described in Ordinance No. 3060 ends. In its writ, the ACLU of Nevada is asking the court to require the city to hold an election for Municipal Court Department 1 during the 2022 election cycle as required by the North Las Vegas City Charter.

On May 11, 2021, the ACLU of Nevada and the Policing and Protest Clinic at the UNLV Boyd School of Law filed an amicus brief in Cates v. Stroud, a case on petition for review before the United States Supreme Court. The case calls into question the qualified immunity doctrine and arises from an incident in which a Las Vegas woman was subjected to a humiliating strip search during a visit to Nevada’s High Desert State Prison in violation of her constitutional rights. The brief urges the Supreme Court to grant the petition and review the case. For Nevada, qualified immunity creates a serious problem: If there are no state-level mechanisms for addressing civil rights abuses, and the federal courts won’t do it, how does our community protect their constitutional rights?

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. On January 4, 2021, the ACLU and the ACLU of Nevada filed an amicus brief in Williams v. Lazer, a case on petition for review in the Nevada Supreme Court. 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. Ms. Williams filed a complaint with the Nevada Real Estate Division (NRED), alleging that Mr. Lazer acted unprofessionally and made racist and sexist comments about Ms. Williams. In response, Mr. Lazer sued Ms. Williams, claiming the statements she made in the NRED complaint were defamatory. Ms. Williams filed a motion to dismiss the claims under Nevada’s law prohibiting strategic lawsuits against public participation, known as an “anti-SLAPP” law. The district court denied Ms. Williams’ motion, and the Nevada Court of Appeals affirmed the denial. Rather than acknowledging that Ms. Williams’ speech was a protected statement of opinion, the Court of Appeals determined that Ms. Williams’ characterization of Mr. Lazer’s comments as “racist” and “sexist” was a defamatory statement of fact. This characterization is not just incorrect but creates a pleading standard that could have a devastating effect on the free speech rights of Nevadans. Under this standard, any statement of opinion made that the speaker believes to be true could subject the speaker to legal liability. The ACLU and the ACLU of Nevada argued that the Nevada Supreme Court should grant review and reverse the lower court’s ruling because speech about race and gender discrimination is political speech lying at the heart of the First Amendment’s protections. As courts throughout the country have recognized, the meaning of terms like “racist” and “sexist” continues to be vigorously disputed, and it is an error to deem those characterizations factual in the defamation context. To hold otherwise would chill public debate on matters of overriding national concern and make it more difficult to expose and combat harmful prejudice. UPDATE: The Nevada Supreme Court agreed to hear Ms. Williams’ appeal, and on Sept. 16 issued a ruling that affirms Nevadans’ free speech rights and maintains the integrity of Nevada’s anti-SLAPP laws. The Supreme Court agreed that most of Ms. Williams’ statements regarding Lazer’s racist and sexist behavior were protected opinion and, to the extent there were any factual statements, they were made in good faith and subject to Nevada’s absolute privilege for statements made in connection with litigation. This ruling is a win for Nevadans across the state, ensuring that we can continue speaking up against discrimination in all its forms with more protection from baseless litigation that seeks to silence us.