Equal Protection

Tuesday brought a plot twist to the Nevada State Legislature and Gov. Joe Lombardo’s sweeping crime bill, with the introduction of an amendment adding provisions that would protect students from Immigration and Customs Enforcement and a brand new bill whose language mirrors two key components of the crime bill.

Assembly Concurrent Resolution 5 would order a legislative study on immigration enforcement operations in the state. It is not expected to be heard or passed, and behind the scenes became a flashpoint for advocates and lawmakers who wanted to see more done to safeguard immigrant families in the wake of large-scale immigration sweeps.

The Nevada Resort Association on Thursday defended the provisions of Gov. Joe Lombardo’s crime bill that would allow courts to ban certain criminal offenders from the resort corridor for up to a year.

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.

In 1979, appellant Robert Ybarra Jr. was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death by a jury. Mr. Ybarra lives with serious mental illness, and the jury that sentenced him to death was not instructed that it needed to find beyond a reasonable doubt that aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating ones, such as mental illness. Capital defendants who live with serious mental illness, like Mr. Ybarra, are more likely to be sentenced to death. This is because symptoms of their mental illness often impair trial and appellate proceedings, leading to unreliability in sentencing. The ACLU’s Capital Punishment Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Nevada, filed an amicus curiae brief arguing that Article 1, section 6 of the Nevada Constitution—which prohibits cruel or unusual punishment—bars the execution of individuals with serious mental illness. As the brief argues, executing capital defendants with serious mental illness is cruel and lacks penological justification. It further argues that executing capital defendants is unusual given evolving standards of decency and increased protections for individuals with mental illness. Amici urge the Court to recognize that executing capital defendants with serious mental illness is unconstitutional and to categorically exempt this population from execution.

We are representing Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas (SJP UNLV), a student group that protests Israel’s military actions in Palestine and exercises its First Amendment rights by organizing protests and advocating on social media, and has also urged UNLV administrators to stop supporting Palestinian people by not investing money in groups tied to Israel. We stepped in after another UNLV student who disagreed with SJP UNLV’s views sued the group, along with several other defendants, under the federal Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) and for intentional infliction of emotional distress, even though the student did not show how UNLV SJP assisted in terrorism or explain how they were harmed. We filed a motion to dismiss, asking the court to dismiss the case because SJP UNLV’s advocacy is protected by the First Amendment, and the student failed to provide sufficient facts related to claims of infliction of emotional distress. We also filed a second motion under Nevada’s anti-SLAAP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) laws, which protects people and groups from lawsuits meant to silence speech on public issues.

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.