ACLU of Nevada Appeals Dismissal of Lawsuit Challenging LVMPD’s Agreement with ICE

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Nevada filed a notice of appeal with the Nevada Supreme Court, seeking to revive its legal challenge against the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department’s (LVMPD) 287(g) agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Last month, District Judge Monica Trujillo dismissed the case on procedural grounds.

The original lawsuit, Morais-Hechavarria v. LVMPD was filed in Clark County’s Eighth Judicial District Court in October 2025. The ACLU argued that LVMPD’s participation in the federal 287(g) program—which deputizes local officers at the Clark County Detention Center to perform certain immigration enforcement functions, including database checks, issuing civil immigration detainers, and holding individuals up to 48 hours beyond their scheduled release for ICE pickup—violates Nevada state law under Dillon’s Rule. The suit claimed the agreement exceeds local authority granted by the legislature and can interfere with state court orders, such as one directing the plaintiff’s transfer to inpatient treatment.

LVMPD has defended the program as a targeted, jail-based “warrant service officer” model focused exclusively on the Clark County Detention Center. Officials say it prioritizes identifying and transferring individuals with serious criminal histories—such as felonies involving violence, DUI, or domestic violence—to federal custody, preventing their release back into the community. The department rejoined the program in 2025 after a hiatus and has reported hundreds of transfers since reactivation.

The ACLU challenge unfolds against a backdrop of sharp divisions between Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo (former Clark County sheriff) and Democratic Attorney General Aaron Ford (a 2026 gubernatorial challenger) over immigration enforcement in Nevada. As illegal immigration takes center stage nationally, it also takes center stage locally as Nevada has the second largest share of undocumented residents behind only Florida.

Lombardo has strongly supported robust local-federal cooperation, emphasizing removal of what he calls the “worst of the worst”—serious criminal offenders. He encouraged LVMPD’s return to the 287(g) program and signed a September 2025 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the U.S. Department of Justice. That agreement led to Nevada becoming the first state removed from the DOJ’s list of sanctuary jurisdictions. 

In sharp contrast, Ford has a history of backing sanctuary state policies embraced by his Democratic colleagues.

In 2017 as a state legislator, Ford co-sponsored Senate Bill 223 which would have “restricted law enforcement from performing certain actions relating to immigration enforcement.” Yet in a statement posted on X, Ford contends he “has never supported sanctuary for criminals.”

Last November, AG Ford announced his office “will be a bulwark” against any effort by the Trump administration “to impose unconstitutional mandates, override our system of checks and balances, or intrude upon the rights of any Nevada resident.” His office released two “Know Your Rights” documents to inform legal and illegal immigrants and their employers of their legal rights and joined Know Your Rights seminars held by the ACLU and left-of-center nonprofits.

In his 2024 warning to the incoming Trump administration, Ford emphasized: “There is no one way to be a Nevadan. The residents of our great state -whether they’ve been here for 3 weeks or are third- generation Nevadans.”

In February 2025, Ford release Model Immigration Policies that “did not align with the Governor’s directions because they indicated state and local law enforcement should not support federal immigration activities.”

Just two days after the Nevada Attorney General released those Model Immigration Policies, Governor Lombardo released the following statement:“Let me be clear: The Attorney General does not have the authority to make Nevada a sanctuary state or jurisdiction. As long as I am Governor, Nevada will continue to follow federal law.”

“Despite the Attorney General’s attempts to implement sanctuary policies, Nevada is not a sanctuary state, has never been a sanctuary state, and will never be a sanctuary state under my leadership,” said Governor  Lombardo. “The State’s agreement with the Department of Justice today reaffirms our commitment to following federal immigration law in Nevada.”

The policy debate occurs amid documented cases of serious crimes by individuals in the country illegally, as covered by the California Globe. 

These include the case of Mexican national Carlos Nava, 49, a serial rapist accused of assaulting at least 17 victims in the Las Vegas area. Nava had been deported at least eight times since 2002 but repeatedly re-entered the U.S. illegally; he faced reinstated charges in Clark County after withdrawing an Alford plea.

Decisions by Obama-appointed U.S. District Judge Richard F. Boulware II has drawn sharp criticism for rulings perceived as lenient toward criminal noncitizens. In September 2025, the California Globe reported that Judge Boulware released at least three criminal illegal alien defendants on low bonds of $1,500 to $2,000 despite their criminal histories, superseding prior immigration judge orders in some cases. 

More recently, in January 2026, Judge Boulware ordered the immediate release of Harvey Laureano-Rosales, a convicted murderer and former MS-13 gang member, from ICE custody over the government’s strong objections and public safety concerns raised by the Department of Justice. 

The DOJ vowed to seek further review, highlighting the risks of releasing such individuals back into Nevada communities.

The Nevada Supreme Court appeal will test whether the ACLU’s challenge advances to the substantive question of local authority under state law to partner with federal immigration enforcement. The case highlights ongoing tensions in Nevada—a purple state with a large immigrant workforce—between federal priorities under the Trump administration and differing state-level views on the proper scope of local cooperation. 

No immediate comment from LVMPD on the latest filing was available as of this reporting.