On the eve of the November 2024 presidential election, a third-party organization has challenged about 11,000 voters in Washoe County, Nevada on the basis of purportedly improper residency. When Washoe County rightly declined to process these challenges as improper under Nevada law, the third-party organization sued to compel the county to act on the challenges. The ACLU Voting Rights Project and the ACLU of Nevada have moved to intervene in the case to prevent mass disenfranchisement of Washoe County voters mere weeks out from the 2024 general election.

This case concerns whether police may access private and sensitive medical records without a warrant as part of a criminal investigation of an individual, when those records are contained within state prescription drug monitoring databases.

Nevadans, like voters in many states, have chosen to legalize marijuana for medicinal and recreational use. In Nevada, these changes—adopted through citizen ballot initiatives and, in the case of medical marijuana, enshrined in the Nevada Constitution—were intended to ensure that marijuana is regulated much like alcohol and that law enforcement resources are focused on violent crime, not the prosecution of non-violent drug offenses. Despite these legal changes, Nevada’s Board of Pharmacy continues to regulate marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance for purposes of state law, akin to the Board’s treatment of cocaine and fentanyl. The Board’s scheduling designation for marijuana has enormous implications for criminal defendants in Nevada since state law makes it a felony to possess or engage in certain other activity with respect to a Schedule I controlled substance, as designated by the Board. This case, brought by an individual and organization harmed by the Board’s scheduling designation for marijuana, involves the question whether the designation violates the Nevada Constitution and state statutes. The ACLU of Nevada is counsel in the case, and the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative is co-counsel on appeal. In August 2024, the Court held that Pool and CEIC lack standing to challenge marijuana's designation as a Schedule I substance but recognized that other individuals could appropriately do so in the future. The Court did not reach the merits in reversing the district court’s positive decision.