Court Cases
Featured Cases
Nov 25, 2025
Morais-Hechavarria v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
We filed a lawsuit challenging the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department’s (LVMPD) 287(g) agreement with ICE. That agreement allows ICE to use local law enforcement to assist in carrying out its federal immigration enforcement agenda.
Apr 17, 2026
ACLU of Nevada v. Department of Motor Vehicles
We’re suing the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) for violating Nevada’s public records laws by refusing to release records related to their communications with ICE.
Apr 23, 2026
ACLU of Nevada v. Clark County School District
In February, Durango High School students were attacked by CCSD police, and video of the incident was captured by a bystander. CCSD continues to stonewall the release of public records related to the incident. The ACLU of Nevada is representing two of the students attacked in the incident.
The ACLU of Nevada filed for a writ of mandamus in a Clark County court in order to force the Clark County School District to release records that the civil rights nonprofit is entitled to. A writ of mandamus is a legal action meant to compel a government actor to follow the law.
In February, Durango High School students were attacked by CCSD police for recording officers in the community. Video of the incident captured by a bystander has been shared widely throughout Nevada — including before the Legislature — but despite persistent requests from the news media and others, the school district continues to stonewall the release of public records related to the incident, such as body-worn camera footage and incident reports. Even the ACLU of Nevada, which is representing two teenagers who were attacked in the incident, has been denied the records.
In March, the ACLUNV announced it was giving the school district 30 days to comply with the law or the nonprofit would file legal action. CCSD has failed to produce the records for the teenagers’ attorneys.
On March 26, 2026, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that investigative files related to internal investigations are confidential under state law and therefore exempt from disclosure under the Nevada Public Records Act.
UPDATE: On April 23, 2026, ACLUNV filed a petition for en banc reconsideration.
All Cases
17 Court Cases
Apr 27, 2026
Filutowski v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Amicus)
Sebastian Filutowski sold his Camaro in a legitimate transaction and received payment in cryptocurrency, which he converted to U.S. dollars. LVMPD later froze and seized more than $50,000 from his bank account through its Cyber Investigative Group policy. Under that policy, detectives can seek a warrant without notifying the property owner, classify the person as a “secondary victim,” and transfer the money to another person without filing a forfeiture case or providing an adversarial hearing.
Filutowski filed a lawsuit seeking the return of his property and an order blocking law enforcement from using property seizure practices that deny people due process. The district court ordered LVMPD to return his money but denied his request for a permanent injunction. Filutowski appealed that decision to the Nevada Supreme Court.
We filed an amicus brief, in partnership with Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice, because law enforcement should not be allowed to bypass due process through internal policies that function like civil forfeiture while avoiding forfeiture safeguards. In our brief, we argue that LVMPD’s Cyber Investigative Group policy has the same real-world impact as civil forfeiture: a person loses access to their property and must fight the government to recover it. We also argue that the harm occurs when the property is taken, not only after someone has exhausted every possible legal remedy. Returning money months later does not erase the violation or the cost of being forced to litigate for basic constitutional protections.
Apr 22, 2026
Jacobo-Ramirez et al. v. Mullin
We filed a class action lawsuit, in collaboration with the ACLU and the UNLV Immigration Clinic, against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), challenging a new federal policy that unlawfully denied immigrants their right to a bond hearing.
For decades, people who were living in the U.S. and later detained by immigration authorities were entitled to a bond hearing under federal law. The DHS has now reversed this precedent by reclassifying these longtime residents as “applicants for admission,” thereby stripping them of their right to ask a judge for release.
Now, under this new policy, anyone who entered the United States without inspection is detained while their immigration case moves forward without the opportunity for a bond hearing, also known as a custody redetermination hearing.
This is a direct attack on due process. People who have lived in Nevada for years are now being held for prolonged periods of time in civil detention facilities without knowing when, or if, they’ll ever see a judge.
Our class action seeks to reaffirm the right to a bond hearing for immigrants arrested inside of the United States and prevent them from being unlawfully detained without the possibility of release and in violation of their due process rights.
UPDATE: On March 26, 2026, a federal court granted partial summary judgment, ruling that the Department of Homeland Security's mandatory detention policies are unlawful, restoring access to bond hearings for undocumented immigrants.
Apr 22, 2026
Nevada Department of Public Safety v. Lara (Amicus)
In 2021, Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) stopped Lara while he was driving through Nevada to visit his daughters in California. During the stop, officers seized over $85,000 in cash, which was his life savings. Lara was not arrested, charged with a crime, or issued a ticket. Instead of following Nevada’s civil forfeiture process, NHP routed the money through the federal adoption and equitable sharing program. Through that program, state and local law enforcement agencies can transfer seized property to the federal government and later receive a portion of the proceeds.
Under civil forfeiture, the government takes people’s property, sometimes even when they have not been convicted of a crime. This invites abuse, and so Nevada law includes protections for property owners facing civil forfeiture, including court oversight, deadlines, and a higher burden of proof. Those protections are imperfect but help limit abuse. Federal civil forfeiture does not have the same protections.
We filed an amicus brief in support of Stephen Lara. In our amicus brief, we argue that law enforcement should not be able to evade Nevada’s civil forfeiture laws through federal adoption or equitable sharing. Civil forfeiture already creates dangerous financial incentives because agencies can benefit from the property they seize. Those incentives are even stronger when agencies can use the federal system to avoid Nevada’s already limited safeguards and keep more of the money they take.
Apr 03, 2026
McAllister v. Clark County
We're challenging Clark County's pedestrian flow zone ordinance for its vague language that allows LVMPD to selectively enforce and, in effect, selectively target people. Our client uses a manual wheelchair, and under this ordinance, could be charged with a misdemeanor for stopping to take a break.
In January 2024, the Clark County Commission voted to establish pedestrian flow zones on the pedestrian bridges at the Las Vegas Strip and charge people with a misdemeanor for stopping or standing on these bridges.
Mar 20, 2026
United States of America v. Aguilar
In conjunction with the national ACLU, we’ve filed a motion to intervene in this case to protect Nevada voters and ensure people can participate in our democracy freely, safely, and without fear.
Feb 19, 2026
Feazell v. Bean (Amicus)
Doneale Feazell was just 18 years old when he was accused of committing a homicide and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging his unconstitutional detention.
Alongside the Juvenile Law Center, we filed an amicus brief in support of his petition, arguing that sentencing an 18-year-old to die in prison violates the Nevada Constitution's ban on cruel or unusual punishment.
Nevada’s Constitution provides stronger protections than the federal standard. While the Eighth Amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment,” Nevada prohibits punishment that is “cruel or unusual.” Courts in other states have relied on similar language to strike down life without parole sentences for older adolescents, including those up to age 20.
Research shows that young people in this age group share key developmental traits with those under 18, including a greater capacity for growth and change. Because of this, states across the country are expanding protections, including access to parole and resentencing.
Nevada courts should do the same. Given this growing body of research and legal precedent, Nevada courts should recognize that sentencing young people like Feazell to die in prison is unconstitutional.
Jan 12, 2026
Baggett v. Bean (Amicus)
Despite only being 19 when accused of murder, Johnny Baggett was sentenced to two consecutive life terms without the possibility of parole. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging his unconstitutional detention and raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel that prevented him from proving his innocence.
In conjunction with the Juvenile Law Center, we filed an amicus brief in support of his petition, arguing that sentencing a 19-year-old to life without parole violates the Nevada Constitution's ban on cruel or unusual punishment.
The Nevada Constitution provides stronger protections than the federal standard. While the Eighth Amendment prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment," Nevada prohibits punishment that is "cruel or unusual." Courts in other states have relied on similar language to strike down life without parole sentences for older adolescents, including those up to age 20. Research shows that young people in this age group share key developmental traits with those under 18, including a greater capacity for growth and change. Because of this, states across the country are expanding protections, including access to parole and resentencing.
Given this growing body of research and legal precedent, Nevada courts should recognize that sentencing young people like Baggett to die in prison is unconstitutional.
Sep 23, 2025
City of Sparks v. Bluth (Amicus)
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.
Stay Informed
Sign up to be the first to hear about how to take action.
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU’s privacy statement.
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU’s privacy statement.