Search

The ACLU of Nevada filed an amicus brief urging the Nevada Supreme Court to strengthen its interpretation of the Equal Rights Amendment to prevent racial discrimination within the courts. A Batson challenge is an objection raised by a lawyer during jury selection when they believe the other side is excluding a potential juror because of their race. Under the Nevada Supreme Court decision in Dixon v. State, Batson challenges are not applicable when the excluded juror is an alternate who did not actively deliberate. Our amicus argues that the Batson process should prohibit a party from striking a juror if that party offers a race-based justification, even if that juror would have been an uncalled alternate. Ultimately, the panel of judges decided that it was a harmless error, a decision unfavorable to our amicus brief. The ACLU of Nevada does not represent the parties in this case and our involvement is limited to filing an amicus curiae brief, also known as a “friend of the court” brief, which allows us to share legal arguments, policy expertise, and broader civil liberties perspectives that may assist the court in making its decision. We file these briefs in cases that may have significant implications for constitutional rights and civil liberties, even when we are not directly representing the client or parties named in the lawsuit.

When you order a Cherry Dark Mocha Cold Brew Latte from any Mothership Coffee Roasters location, you're more than just fueling the day — you're fueling the fight for Nevadan's civil rights.

The ACLU of Nevada and Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice filed an amicus brief in Song Spencer & James Spencer v. City of Henderson, urging the Nevada Supreme Court to allow people to recover attorney’s fees as special damages in successful challenges in civil asset forfeiture cases when the government wrongfully seizes their property. Our amicus brief argues that Nevada law already allows recovery of attorney’s fees in cases when warranted even when there is no law directly on point and that principle should apply here, when someone is forced to sue the government to get their own property back. This case is a challenge to the constitutionality of civil forfeiture laws.

President Trump has dangerously deployed thousands of troops into our communities in response to protests against dangerous ICE raids. We must take action.