En Español>> 

The ACLU of Nevada alerts Nevada residents to potential threats to the constitutional rights and civil liberties of individuals planning to travel or stay in Arizona.

The ACLU of Nevada has a long and well-known history of protecting civil liberties both in the courts and in the legislature. But we have an equally long history of working with the government in an attempt to bring laws and policies in line with the Constitution. One of the ACLU’s core areas of advocacy – grounded in no less than the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendments – is ensuring a sensible, funded, and fair criminal justice system.

He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. --Thomas Paine (1737-1809)

The ACLU of Nevada defends the constitutional rights of everyone – and that frequently means we have very controversial clients. Of course, there’s a reason for this: when our government strains the bounds of the Constitution, it does so almost without exception against groups or individuals perceived as powerless or unpopular.

It’s a great day for civil rights! In a 7-2 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court just declared that criminal attorneys MUST advise their non-citizen clients about the immigration consequences of a guilty plea. In a society that is supposed to require effective legal counsel for those accused of crimes, this just makes sense. Here’s some expert analysis from ACLU of Nevada board member and local immigration attorney, Peter Ashman:

The average caseload for a public defender in Clark County is 364 felony and gross misdemeanor cases and 327 cases in Washoe County. The standard recommended by the National Legal Aid and Defender Association is 150 cases, less than half of what defenders in both of Nevada’s population centers currently carry.

The Nevada Supreme Court issued a sweeping and important decision that struck down a law requiring juvenile defendants to admit their guilt in order to win the right to be heard in juvenile court.

Earlier this year, the Nevada Supreme Court reached out the ACLU of Nevada, as well as national juvenile justice groups, and requested that we file an amicus in this case due to the important constitutional issues raised by Nevada’s “presumptive certification” statute.

The rights of indigent Nevadans who are in need of legal representation for criminal matters have been strengthened thanks to an October 17 order from the Nevada Supreme Court. In the decision, the Court agreed to adopt new standards for the legal representation of indigent individuals charged with crimes and set a deadline of April 1, 2009 for their implementation.

On September 10, 2008, the ACLU of Nevada won a permanent injunction against the retroactive enforcement of A.B. 579 and S.B. 471, Nevada's new sex offender laws. Judge Mahan held that the retroactive application of the laws violated the U.S. Constitution, including the Due Process and Ex Post Facto clauses, making clear that the Constitution applies to all.

On June 30, 2008, the ACLU of Nevada won a preliminary injunction in federal court temporarily staying changes to sex offender laws that would have made it harder to track truly dangerous offenders and violate both the U.S. and Nevada Constitutions.

On Monday, the Nevada Supreme Court issued a ruling suggesting that it shares the ACLU of Nevada’s concerns about the constitutionality of a Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department policy, the “"Downtown Area of Command Strategic Initiative.” Under the Downtown Initiative, people who have criminal records are arrested for minor infractions, while all others are just cited or ticketed. Although the order did not rule on the Downtown Initiative directly, it described the initiative as questionable.