Nevada
learn about our work in Nevada
learn about our work in Nevada
All Cases
5 Nevada Cases
Nevada
Apr 2024
![This image displays prescription bottles.](https://assets-dev.aclu.org/dev/uploads/2019/09/prescription_bottles_by_erin_demay_500x280.jpg)
United States v. Motley — Amicus Brief
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.
Status: Ongoing
View case
![This image displays prescription bottles.](https://assets-dev.aclu.org/dev/uploads/2019/09/prescription_bottles_by_erin_demay_500x280.jpg)
Nevada
Privacy & Technology
United States v. Motley — Amicus Brief
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.
Apr 2024
Status: Ongoing
View case
Nevada Supreme Court
Nov 2023
![Cannabis Equity & Inclusion Community v. Nevada Board of Pharmacy](https://www.aclu.dev/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Cannabis Equity & Inclusion Community v. Nevada Board of Pharmacy
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.
Status: Ongoing
View case
![Cannabis Equity & Inclusion Community v. Nevada Board of Pharmacy](https://www.aclu.dev/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Nevada Supreme Court
Criminal Law Reform
Smart Justice
Cannabis Equity & Inclusion Community v. Nevada Board of Pharmacy
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.
Nov 2023
Status: Ongoing
View case
Nevada
Aug 2023
![Silver State Hope Fund v. Nevada Department of Health and Human Services](https://www.aclu.dev/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Silver State Hope Fund v. Nevada Department of Health and Human Services
Silver State Hope Fund, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the ACLU of Nevada filed a lawsuit in the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County challenging Nevada’s ban on Medicaid coverage for abortion, which discriminates against women and people who can become pregnant based on their sex in violation of the protections voters added to the Nevada Constitution.
Status: Ongoing
View case
![Silver State Hope Fund v. Nevada Department of Health and Human Services](https://www.aclu.dev/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Nevada
Reproductive Freedom
Silver State Hope Fund v. Nevada Department of Health and Human Services
Silver State Hope Fund, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the ACLU of Nevada filed a lawsuit in the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County challenging Nevada’s ban on Medicaid coverage for abortion, which discriminates against women and people who can become pregnant based on their sex in violation of the protections voters added to the Nevada Constitution.
Aug 2023
Status: Ongoing
View case
Nevada
Aug 2020
![Davis v. Nevada](https://www.aclu.dev/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Davis v. Nevada
Every state has a constitutional obligation to provide legal representation to criminal defendants who cannot afford an attorney. Nevada is failing to fulfill this obligation for low income people in its rural counties on a daily basis. Many of these underfunded rural counties lack a true public defense system, and instead mainly rely on flat-fee or defacto flat fee contract attorneys to act as public defenders. These contract attorneys operate without the oversight, resources, or time necessary to ensure they are providing an adequate defense to low income Nevadans. In fact, very often they fail to communicate with clients in basic ways, advocate effectively for pretrial release at bail hearings, or conduct independent investigations necessary to defend their clients. Worse, they at times pressure clients into taking plea bargains against the clients’ express wishes. This is not justice.
View case
![Davis v. Nevada](https://www.aclu.dev/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Nevada
Criminal Law Reform
Davis v. Nevada
Every state has a constitutional obligation to provide legal representation to criminal defendants who cannot afford an attorney. Nevada is failing to fulfill this obligation for low income people in its rural counties on a daily basis. Many of these underfunded rural counties lack a true public defense system, and instead mainly rely on flat-fee or defacto flat fee contract attorneys to act as public defenders. These contract attorneys operate without the oversight, resources, or time necessary to ensure they are providing an adequate defense to low income Nevadans. In fact, very often they fail to communicate with clients in basic ways, advocate effectively for pretrial release at bail hearings, or conduct independent investigations necessary to defend their clients. Worse, they at times pressure clients into taking plea bargains against the clients’ express wishes. This is not justice.
Aug 2020
View case
![Bristol v. Personhood Nevada](https://www.aclu.dev/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
U.S. Supreme Court
Reproductive Freedom
Bristol v. Personhood Nevada
Apr 2010
View case
Stay informed about our latest work in the courts.
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU's privacy statement.