ACLU files lawsuit against CCSD over its graduation regalia policy
LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — Although Nevada has a law that allows students to wear certain regalia on their caps and gowns at school graduation ceremonies, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit on behalf of a student, stating that the Clark County School District isn't following the law.
'For the fourth year in a row, we are again hearing stories about CCSD schools enforcing unconstitutional restrictions on students' decorating their caps and gowns at their high school graduation,' the ACLU said in a news release. 'Our clients and their families deserve the right to express themselves and celebrate their graduation.'
The law states that students are 'entitled to wear traditional tribal regalia or recognized objects of religious or cultural significance as an adornment at a school graduation ceremony.' However, school boards and school officials can ban a specific item if it's 'likely to cause a substantial disruption of, or material interference with, [a graduation] ceremony.'
The lawsuit, filed on Thursday, said the graduating student wanted to wear the following items:
A stole with the written message 'Black Girl Magic' to represent herself.
A black and red stole to represent her time with the ACLU of Nevada's Emerging Leaders program.
A pin signifying her membership in the National Honor Society.
The stoles and cords provided by her school signify her achievements at East Career and Technical Academy.
A cap decorated with small paper flowers, gems and crystals.
The ACLU gave all the students in its Nevada Emerging Leaders program a graduation stole and pin to wear at graduation, and states in the suit that not being able to wear these violates the Nevada law and the First Amendment.
The suit contends that CCSD has not provided proper guidance to schools, causing individual schools to create their own guidelines.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump escalates vendetta against Harvard with fresh bid to ban foreign students
President Donald Trump issued an order on Wednesday barring international students from entering the U.S. to study at Harvard University citing 'national security' concerns. The move is an escalation in the president's ongoing feud with Harvard and other universities. In addition to barring incoming students, Trump also has given Secretary of State Marco Rubio the go-ahead to start revoking the visas of foreign students who are studying at the college. Trump claims that Harvard refused to give his administration information about "known illegal activity" on its campus allegedly committed by international students. The Trump administration previously signaled that it would try to prevent Harvard from enrolling international students, but a federal judge issued an injunction to stop the White House from interfering in the college's enrollment practices. It appears that the president is trying to interfere with Harvard's foreign student enrolment by other means. 'Admission to the United States to study at an 'elite' American university is a privilege, not a right,' Attorney General Pam Bondi said on X. 'This Department of Justice will vigorously defend the President's proclamation suspending the entry of new foreign students at Harvard University based on national security.' Harvard issued a response to the Trump administration's order. 'This is yet another illegal retaliatory step taken by the administration in violation of Harvard's First Amendment rights,' university spokesperson Jason Newton said in a statement. 'Harvard will continue to protect its international students.' The Trump White House demanded that Harvard overhaul its admission and disciplinary policies in April or face losing its funding. He has also accused the college of antisemitism over its handling of pro-Palestinian student protests. Harvard — unlike other universities, like Columbia — refused to bend to the president's pressure. In response, the White House blocked more than $2 billion in federal funding from the university. Since then, Trump has been on a mission to force Harvard to comply with his orders. In early May, he threatened to cancel Harvard's tax exempt status, and later considered giving $3 billion in the university's grants to trade schools. Lawrence Summers, a President Emeritus at Harvard and former Secretary of the Treasury under President Bill Clinton, called Trump's move "punitive extortion." "President @realDonaldTrump's latest salvo against @Harvard clearly represents punitive extortion rather than any seriously thought through policy to promote national security. I hope and trust that the judiciary will again restrain the President in the name of lawful government and the Constitution," Summers wrote on X. While he said that "Harvard should make a variety of changes" to its policies, he insisted that "extortion is the wrong way to bring them about and will ultimately prove to be counterproductive in terms of our national security as we alienate allies, threaten our scientific cutting edge and undermine the major contribution universities make to the national economy."
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump moves to deny visas to Harvard's international students
President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he will deny visas for foreign students trying to come to the United States to attend Harvard University, his latest attack on the prominent Ivy League college. The administration tried late last month to revoke Harvard's ability to enroll foreign students — a move that was swiftly blocked by a federal judge. In a proclamation Wednesday, Trump said Harvard failed to present sufficient information about its foreign students to the federal government. 'Harvard provided data on misconduct by only three students, and the data it provided was so deficient that the DHS could not evaluate whether it should take further actions,' Trump said, referring to the Department of Homeland Security. Harvard said it would fight to protect its international students. "This is yet another illegal retaliatory step taken by the Administration in violation of Harvard's First Amendment rights," a spokesperson for the university said Wednesday night. Trump made his pledge as he announced what amounts to a travel ban for 12 countries and limitations on nine others. The proclamation said the president would 'restrict the entry of foreign nationals who seek to enter the United States solely or principally to participate in a course of study at Harvard University or in an exchange visitor program hosted by Harvard University.' It added that the State Department would review existing foreign students under F, M or J visas to see whether their visas should be revoked. Trump and his administration have attacked Harvard, saying it has not done enough to combat antisemitism on campus during demonstrations against the Israel-Hamas war. Harvard in April rejected Trump administration demands that included auditing viewpoints of the student body. In response, the federal government said it was freezing more than $2 billion in federal grants. The administration previously sought to limit Harvard's ability to enroll foreign students by revoking its certification in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, Harvard said. The government also sought to prohibit Harvard from issuing F and J visas. Harvard President Alan M. Garber responded in a letter on May 23 that Harvard was being retaliated against for refusing to surrender to the Trump administration's illegal attempts to control it and its students. "We condemn this unlawful and unwarranted action," Farber said. "It imperils the futures of thousands of students and scholars across Harvard and serves as a warning to countless others at colleges and universities throughout the country who have come to America to pursue their education and fulfill their dreams." This article was originally published on
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Las Vegas sheriff frustrated after red-light camera, DUI bills fail: ‘We can do better'
LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — Several proposals in the Nevada Legislature aimed at curbing dangerous and impaired driving failed, leaving LVMPD Sheriff Kevin McMahill frustrated as more people in his jurisdiction die on valley roads. 'I got to be honest with you, I feel like I failed,' McMahill, who leads the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, told the 8 News Now Investigators during an exclusive interview Wednesday. 'We can do better. We absolutely can do better, and politics played a role in these things not getting passed.' The 120-day legislative session ended Tuesday at midnight. Nevada lawmakers failed to pass any legislation this session to amend the state's DUI laws where death is involved, or several proposals to allow red-light cameras. McMahill pushed for the cameras in an attempt to discourage reckless and speeding drivers. 'I'm sick and tired of people dying on our roadways because of the bad behavior of other drivers,' he told a legislative committee in March. The bill failed to move forward and died in April. Two proposals aimed at enhancing sentences for DUI involving death also failed to become law. Nevada's DUI-with-death law carries a sentence of 2-20 years. A 1995 Nevada law requires judges to sentence a person to a range, meaning the maximum amount of time a DUI driver who kills can serve in prison before going before the parole board is eight years. The 8 News Now Investigators have found most drivers who kill serve those eight years or less, not 20. An amended version of Republican Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo's crime bill, Senate Bill 457, would have increased the maximum amount of prison time for a DUI driver who kills to 25 years. Lombardo told the 8 News Now Investigators in March that he wanted to change the law to allow prosecutors to charge a DUI driver who kills with second-degree murder. The amended version would have carried a similar maximum sentence – 25 years — as the state's second-degree murder statute. However, the bill failed to pass the Nevada Senate amid a last-minute scramble and speech. A second proposal, Senate Bill 304, would have amended the state's vehicular homicide law to include all DUIs involving death. As currently written, a driver must have three prior DUI convictions to face a vehicular-homicide charge. The proposal would have negated the prior conviction clause, carrying a possible sentence of 10 to 25 years or 10 to life, the same as the state's second-degree murder statute. 'There's just tragedy, tragedy, tragedy all the way around, and it sickens me that I wasn't able to get this done, quite frankly,' McMahill said. Opponents have argued that imprisoning a person for years on the taxpayers' dime is not effective 'Who do you think is working against this?' 8 News Now Investigator David Charns asked the sheriff. 'I think there's a lot of people out there who advocate that this mass incarceration piece hasn't worked over the years,' McMahill said. 'And look, there's a few arguments I think that are valid on that side of the house. There's also a bunch of people that think we've become very soft on crime, and I think there's some arguments that are true there as well.' Nevada law classifies a person's first DUI as a misdemeanor. It carries a potential jail sentence of 2-180 days, though the law is written to say the time can be served through community service. The crime becomes a felony after a person's third DUI within seven years. Tougher penalties, including potential prison time, do not begin unless a person joins that three-plus club. A felony DUI conviction can carry prison time and require a driver to have an interlock device placed in their vehicle. One driver the 8 News Now Investigators followed racked up the three cases so quickly that he did not have a second DUI conviction before his third arrest, meaning all three remained misdemeanors. Records show in those first three DUI cases, municipal court judges ordered the driver to attend classes, stay out of trouble and pay a fine. 'The punishments are literally a slap on the hand,' McMahill said. 'The multiple, multiple DUI, I've watched your reports, you know exactly what I'm talking about, people can get away with a DUI over and over again and that's purely not acceptable.' A third proposal involving misdemeanor DUI, Senate Bill 309, passed and — 36 hours after the end of the session — showed as enrolled in the legislative system. The bill changes the minimum jail requirements for a person's second DUI offense within seven years, amending a possible penalty from 10 days in jail to 20. The bill also lowers the blood-alcohol threshold for when a defendant would be ordered into treatment. Several people blamed the failure of the governor's crime bill on its late introduction and last-minute votes in the final minutes of the legislative session. The governor submitted the crime bill in February, but the Legislative Counsel Bureau did not finalize it until April, a spokesperson for his office said. They added that Democratic leadership did not give the bill a hearing until May 28 — days before the end of the session. Lawmakers will not reconvene, except for special circumstances at the request of the governor, until February 2027. 8 News Now Investigator David Charns can be reached at dcharns@ Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
