ACLU Sues Las Vegas Police to End ICE Cooperation Agreement

(LAS VEGAS, NEVADA) The ACLU of Nevada filed a lawsuit in July 2025 against the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, aiming to end or expose the department’s cooperation with federal immigration authorities under the LVMPD 287(g) agreement. The case challenges the department’s immigration enforcement policies and claims LVMPD failed to follow Nevada’s public records law while expanding cooperation with ICE after the Laken Riley Act took effect. The lawsuit is pending in Clark County District Court.

At the center of the dispute is a May 30, 2025 agreement that allows certain LVMPD officers to act under federal authority. Under the 287(g) arrangement, LVMPD can serve ICE warrants and hold people up to 48 hours after their scheduled release so ICE can take custody. According to the ACLU lawsuit, these steps contradict earlier public statements from LVMPD that it would not take part in federal immigration enforcement or cover detention costs on ICE’s behalf.

The civil complaint accuses LVMPD of violating Nevada’s public records law by not releasing requested documents tied to its immigration work, including the 287(g) agreement, any amendments, training materials, and the jail’s “foreign born” booking policy. The ACLU seeks a court order requiring the records to be released and civil penalties for the alleged violations. LVMPD has said it will not comment on pending litigation.

Policy shifts after the Laken Riley Act

The ACLU points to a series of changes it says show LVMPD’s deeper involvement with federal immigration enforcement.

• In January 2025, after the Laken Riley Act became law, LVMPD expanded the list of charges that trigger reporting to ICE.
• In June 2025, LVMPD confirmed it had applied to join the 287(g) program, which deputizes local officers for certain federal immigration tasks.
• By May 30, 2025, the agreement was signed, formalizing a path for LVMPD to help ICE identify and transfer people from the jail.

LVMPD says its policy is focused on people already booked on criminal charges and that it has made no further changes beyond the new agreement. Officials emphasize the LVMPD 287(g) agreement does not authorize street-level “immigration sweeps,” but rather allows officers to cooperate with ICE inside the controlled jail setting once a person’s local charges are resolved or bail conditions are met.

The 287(g) program is a federal tool that lets ICE partner with local agencies. For official program details, readers can review the U.S. government’s description of 287(g) partnerships on the ICE website. Immigration advocates and some local officials have criticized the program nationwide, and in Las Vegas it drew added attention after the federal government labeled the city a “sanctuary jurisdiction,” a designation some local leaders dispute.

Legal claims and transparency fight

The ACLU lawsuit makes two main claims:

1. LVMPD failed to produce records tied to immigration enforcement policies, including:
   • the scope of officer training,
   • procedures for identifying “foreign born” individuals during booking, and
   • internal directives on when and how to contact ICE.

1. LVMPD lacked authority to enter the agreement without approval from the Nevada Legislature, especially given the budget impact if the jail covers costs tied to holding people for ICE.

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the ACLU’s filing fits a broader pattern of legal battles over local participation in federal immigration systems. The group says LVMPD’s expanded reporting policy is vague and could lead to wrongful detention of U.S. citizens and people with lawful status, raising constitutional concerns.

The lawsuit asks the court to:
– force disclosure of records,
– examine whether the department can spend local resources on federal enforcement without a clear mandate from state lawmakers, and
– consider civil penalties for the alleged public-records violations.

LVMPD has emphasized that people are not held for ICE unless there are criminal charges and that the goal is to allow federal authorities to assume custody in the jail after local matters are addressed. The department has not publicly responded to the ACLU’s specific legal claims, citing the pending case.

“Full transparency is essential for people to make legal choices, plan for custody transfers, and protect constitutional rights,” the ACLU argues in its filing.

Community impact and concerns

Community advocates warn the expanded cooperation can create fear that spreads beyond the jail:

• Families with mixed immigration status may avoid reporting crimes or seeking help, even as witnesses or victims.
• Defense attorneys worry a 48-hour ICE hold can disrupt plea negotiations or reentry planning.
• Employers report that workers uneasy about their status may quit jobs or skip shifts, pulling back from daily life.
• Immigrant rights groups say 287(g) agreements often pull local police into federal work that should be handled by ICE alone.

They point to past cases in other cities where errors in jail records or data systems led to U.S. citizens being flagged as removable. The ACLU’s lawsuit highlights that risk in Clark County by calling the reporting policy vague and warning that mistakes at booking can escalate once data flows to federal systems.

Funding, local authority, and practical questions

The complaint raises financial and authority issues:

• The ACLU alleges LVMPD is covering costs linked to immigration holds at the jail, which the group argues should require state-level approval.
• If local budgets shoulder these expenses, county leaders may face trade-offs on staffing, jail operations, and community programs.
• Some local officials oppose the “sanctuary” label and worry about potential federal funding threats, while others say the label is misleading and stress that Las Vegas remains cooperative with federal law when it comes to serious crimes.

Key practical questions for residents include:

• What happens when a person finishes a local case but faces a hold for ICE?
• How are family members notified?
• Can defense lawyers see the cooperation documents to advise clients?

The ACLU says those answers are buried in records it has requested from LVMPD.

Where things stand and next steps

Policy experts note the Laken Riley Act prompted many jurisdictions to reevaluate immigration enforcement policies. In Clark County, the shift showed up in January 2025 with broadened reporting, and the May 30, 2025 signing of the LVMPD 287(g) agreement gave officers new tools inside the jail.

As the case proceeds:

• The ACLU continues to press for an end to LVMPD’s cooperation with ICE under 287(g) and for the release of all requested records.
• LVMPD maintains its policy is limited and focused on jail transfers after criminal matters are resolved.
• The court’s timeline is not yet clear, and LVMPD has declined further comment during the litigation.

Residents who want updates can monitor public statements from the ACLU of Nevada and LVMPD. Advocates advise people with concerns to:

• speak with trusted counsel, and
• keep copies of identity documents close at hand if a loved one faces a transfer hold.

While the legal fight unfolds, the stakes—family unity, due process, and local budgets—remain front and center for Clark County.