Court Cases
Featured Cases
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.
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 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
52 Court Cases
May 28, 2026
Planned Parenthood Mar Monte v. Nevada (Amicus)
In yet another result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of the Roe v. Wade decision, in July 2024, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lifted an injunction against a 1985 Nevada law requiring parental notification for abortion procedures for minors. Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, a 501(c)3 health care provider, quickly filed litigation to block the notification law from negatively affecting access to abortion care in Nevada.
ACLU and ACLU of Nevada argue in a new amicus brief that a lower court ruling used incorrect legal standards. The amicus brief also examines the procedures that are required under the 1985 law, including interviews and court hearings for young people seeking judicial bypass. Such processes differ from county to county, with some courts having no processes in place at all.
UPDATE: On May 28, 2026, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, reversed the district court's decision, and ordered the lower court to grant a preliminary injunction, blocking enforcement of SB510.
May 18, 2026
State of Nevada v. Foote
We are representing Fremont Street performer Toney Foote in a First Amendment challenge involving restrictions on street performers on the Fremont Street Experience pedestrian mall.
Our client is a Michael Jackson impersonator who has performed on Fremont Street for almost a decade and was cited in October 2025 under a city ordinance for allegedly performing outside one of the designated six-foot performance circles used for street performers.
We filed a motion seeking dismissal of the charge, arguing that the ordinance violates the First Amendment. Our motion argues that Fremont Street is a public forum where free speech protections are strongest, and that street performing is a protected expression. We also argue that the ordinance unfairly treats independent street performers differently from certain street performers affiliated with Fremont Street Experience.
UPDATE: On June 3, 2026, the City of Las Vegas dismissed the charges against Toney Foote.
May 13, 2026
State v. Polovina
Jordan Polovina is a cellist and street performer who was cited by police for playing music on a pedestrian bridge on the Las Vegas Strip. While officers claimed Polovina violated a rule against stopping or standing in a pedestrian area, dozens of other people were standing in the same space before, during, and after the citation and were not cited.
Polovina was cited under a county ordinance that makes it a misdemeanor to (1) stop or stand within any Pedestrian Flow Zone, or (2) intentionally causing another person who is within a Pedestrian Flow Zone to stop or stand. A conviction can carry jail time for up to six months of a fine of up to $1,000.
We’re asking the court to dismiss the charge against Polovina because he was singled out for playing music, an activity protected by the First Amendment. Law enforcement targeted him for his expression, rather than enforcing the rule equally.
In addition to this case, the ACLU of Nevada represents Polovina in a related civil lawsuit challenging the same ordinance. The lawsuit, McAllister v. Clark County, argues that the ordinance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the right to due process.
UPDATE: On May 13, 2026, the charges against Mr. Polovina were dismissed.
May 07, 2026
ACLU of Nevada v Clark County School District
As Southern Nevada high school seniors headed toward graduation, many of the students were at risk of having their First Amendment rights violated under a Clark County School District policy adopted in March that added new restrictions on cap and gown decorations and banned objects and adornments that “constitute proselytizing speech.”
Our civil rights attorneys say that the policy has led to individual schools creating their own guidelines, which even contradict themselves. The complaint says, for example, that Canyon Springs High School and Del Sol Academy have communicated both that all cap decorations will be banned and that students can adorn their caps with decorations that have religious or cultural significance. Las Vegas High School is going even further and requiring students to submit pictures of decorations and accessories for advanced approval.
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.
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.