Court Calls ACLU Nevada’s 287(g) Challenge ‘Moot’ in New Ruling

LAS VEGAS – A Clark County judge on Friday decline to issue relief to Sergio Morais-Hechavarria and the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada to Las Vegas police’s cooperation agreement with ICE based on procedural grounds but failed to rule on the merits of the agreement. The ACLU of Nevada, which stated during the pendency of the proceedings it expected the case to go up on appeal regardless of the outcome of the case, has confirmed it is likely to appeal this decision.

In Friday’s order, Judge Monica Trujillo writes that Morais-Hechavarria did not have standing to challenge the policy. While finding ACLU of Nevada did have standing to proceed with challenges, Judge Trujillo stated she was unable to consider the issue pursuant to Nevada’s public importance doctrine because of her narrow reading of the Nevada Supreme Court’s interpretation of that rule.

Background on the Case

ACLU of Nevada filed the case, Morais-Hechavarria v. LVMPD, Case No. A-25-930343-W in October, arguing the police department’s new 287(g) agreement, which allows ICE to use local law enforcement resources to assist in carrying out its federal immigration enforcement agenda, violates state laws.

ACLU of Nevada executive director Athar Haseebullah (he/him) said:

“While I would have hoped the district court would have ruled on the merits of the agreement here and not declined to rule on the merits because of our client’s deportation, which occurred during the case, I won’t pretend to act surprised. This is a case that has significant consequences and impact beyond the mere legality of a governmental agreement. I said during the initial hearings on this matter that I didn’t expect this case to be settled at the district court level and believed this matter would likely be appealed, regardless of the outcome. LVMPD’s 287(g) cooperation agreement with ICE is unlawful, no court has found that agreement is lawful, including this court, and as more detainers are issued by ICE, additional grounds for litigation are arising. We will continue forward with our challenge to the agreement, and additional challenges are now likely, including a likely appeal here.”