ACLU sues Nevada school district over 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 Las Vegas-area Clark County School District (CCSD) 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 union added.
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:
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.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Government drones used in 'runaway spying operation' to peek into backyards in Sonoma County, lawsuit says
Three residents filed a lawsuit this week against Sonoma County seeking to block code enforcement from using drones to take aerial images of their homes in what the American Civil Liberties Union is calling a "runaway spying operation." The lawsuit, filed by the ACLU Wednesday on behalf of the three residents, alleges that the county began using drones with high-powered cameras and zoom lenses in 2019 to track illegal cannabis cultivation, but in the years since, officials have used the devices more than 700 times to find other code violations on private property without first seeking a warrant. "For too long, Sonoma County code enforcement has used high-powered drones to warrantlessly sift through people's private affairs and initiate charges that upend lives and livelihoods. All the while, the county has hidden these unlawful searches from the people they have spied on, the community, and the media," Matt Cagle, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, said in a statement. A spokesperson for Sonoma County said the county is reviewing the complaint and takes "the allegations very seriously." Read more: Will these drones 'revolutionize' 911 response? L.A. suburb will be first to test The lawsuit comes amid a national debate over the use of drones by government agencies who have increasingly relied on the unmanned aircraft during disasters and for environmental monitoring and responding to emergency calls. More recently, some agencies in California and in other states have explored using drones to investigate code enforcement violations. In 2024, nearly half of Sonoma County's drone flights involved non-cannabis violations, including construction without a permit, junkyard conditions and zoning violations, according to data included in the complaint. "The use of drones over someone's private space raises a question of what is considered private," said Ari Ezra Waldman, a professor of law at UC Irvine. Waldman said if law enforcement on the ground wants to see on the other side of a tall fence or trees into someone's property they have to get the person's consent or they need probable cause for a warrant. "Why shouldn't that apply above ground too?" he said. California doesn't have a law that regulates the use of drones by code enforcement agents. In 2015, lawmakers in the state Assembly approved a measure that would have restricted the use of drones over private property without the owner's permission. Then-Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed the bill saying at the time that it could expose hobbyists or commercial users to "burdensome litigation." The ACLU argues that the county's use of drones as an investigative tool violates the California Constitution which provides people the right to privacy and against unreasonable searches and seizures. "I think that our expectations of privacy are based on social norms and people don't normally expect that someone is going to have a super high powered, detailed ability to capture extraordinary detail with a camera that's just buzzing over their property," Waldman said. "We shouldn't have to walk around life expecting that just because this technology exists that we have no privacy from anything anymore, from any direction." The lawsuit also alleges that the county's drone policy has loosened in the past several years. In 2019, the policy required inspectors to receive a complaint about a property before deploying a drone. Now, officials have no such requirement, allowing them instead to launch "discretionary proactive investigations," the complaint states. Residents named in the lawsuit say that the drones hovering above their homes have resulted in ongoing privacy concerns and a loss of enjoyment of their property. One plaintiff, Benjamin Verdusco, decided to sell his home after he learned that the county had been taking pictures of his backyard with a drone in 2021, according to the complaint. Read more: Police drones could soon crisscross the skies. Cities need to be ready, ACLU warns Another plaintiff, Nichola Schmitz, who is deaf, wasn't able to hear the buzz of the drone hovering above her property on Oct.10, 2023. When a worker on her property pointed it out she "became confused and worried," the complaint states. She rushed to her bedroom and closed the curtains, concerned about how long the drone had been there and whether it had seen her naked on her property earlier that day. She alleges the drone made two big loops around her property and, shortly after, a red tag appeared on her gate alleging two violations of the county code — one for illegal grading and another for having on her property an unpermitted dwelling, a small cabin that her father had built on the land in 1981. She spent $25,000 for a contractor to fix the alleged grading issue but still faces $10,000 in fines. ACLU attorneys allege the evidence obtained by the drone was done so unlawfully because officials did not have a search warrant. "This horrible experience has shattered my sense of privacy and security," Schmitz said in a statement. "I'm afraid to open my blinds or go outside to use my hot tub because who knows when the county's drone could be spying on me." A third plaintiff, Suzanne Brock, confronted county officials after she learned that they had taken detailed aerial photos of her outdoor bathtub and shower that she and her daughter used daily. She expressed concern to inspectors that they might have seen her naked in the bathtub. Code Enforcement Inspector Ryan Sharp told her that "when we see something like that, we turn around," according to the complaint. When Brock asked if county officials see people during the flights, Sharp told her yes, according to the complaint, but added that "we don't put that in the camera footage." Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Appeals court hands AP an incremental loss in its attempt to regain its access to Trump events
Digging deep into free-speech precedents in recent American history, a federal appeals panel handed The Associated Press an incremental loss on Friday in its continuing battle with the Trump administration over access by its journalists to cover presidential events. By a 2-1 margin, judges on the three-judge U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington granted Trump a stay in enforcement of a lower-court ruling that the administration had improperly punished the AP for the content of its speech — in this case not renaming the Gulf of Mexico to Trump's liking. The news outlet's access to events in the Oval Office and Air Force One was cut back starting in February after the AP said it would continue referring to the Gulf of Mexico in its copy, while noting Trump's wishes that it instead be renamed the Gulf of America. For decades, a reporter and photographer for the AP — a 179-year-old wire service whose material is sent to thousands of news outlets across the world and carried on its own website, reaching billions of people — had been part of a 'pool' that covers a president in places where space is limited. The decision itself was aimed only at whether to continue the stay. But the majority and dissenting opinions together totaled 55 pages and delved deeply into First Amendment precedents and questions about whether places like the Oval Office and Air Force One were, in effect, private spaces. Trump posted about the decision on the Truth Social platform shortly after the decision: 'Big WIN over AP today. They refused to state the facts or the Truth on the GULF OF AMERICA. FAKE NEWS!!!' And White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, one of the defendants in the AP's lawsuit, posted on X after the decision came down that it was a 'VICTORY!' and would allow more media to access the president beyond the 'failing legacy media.' She added: 'And by the way, @AP, it's still the Gulf of America.' An AP spokesman said that 'we are disappointed in the court's decisions and are reviewing our options.' One possibility is seeking an expedited review of the full case on its merits. President given wide latitude by court majority Judges Gregory G. Katsas and Neomi Rao agreed in Friday's ruling with Trump's assertion that it's up to the president to decide who gets into spaces like the Oval Office — and he can take into account the viewpoint of journalists he allows. That's related to AP's assertion that the ban amounts to a legal principle known as 'viewpoint discrimination.' 'If the president sits down for an interview with (Fox News') Laura Ingraham, he is not required to do the same with (MSNBC's) Rachel Maddow,' Rao wrote in the opinion. 'The First Amendment does not control the president's discretion in choosing with whom to speak or to whom to provide special access.' In deciding on a stay, the judges considered the likelihood of which side would win the case when Trump's full appeal is taken up, probably not for a few months. In that situation, a different panel of appeals court judges will hear it. Katsas and Rao were both appointed to the federal court by Trump in his first term. Judge Cornelia T.L. Pillard, who dissented on Friday, was appointed by former President Barack Obama. Pillard wrote that there's no principled basis for exempting the Oval Office from a requirement that a president not engage in viewpoint discrimination. There's nothing to stop the majority's reasoning from being applied to the press corps as a whole, she wrote. In that case, it's not hard to see future Republican White Houses limiting the press covering them to the likes of Fox News, and Democrats to MSNBC, she wrote. 'More to the point, if the White House were privileged to exclude journalists based on viewpoint, each and every member of the White House press corps would hesitate to publish anything an incumbent administration might dislike,' Pillard wrote. The bumpiness between Trump and the press is longstanding Since the original ruling, the White House has installed a rotation system for access to small events. AP photographers are usually included, but text reporters are allowed in much less frequently. A study earlier this year showed Trump has spoken to the press more often in the first 100 days of his administration than any of his predecessors back to Ronald Reagan. But he's much more likely to speak to a small group of reporters called into the Oval Office than at a formal briefing or press conference — to which AP journalists have been admitted. Through Leavitt, the White House has opened up to many more conservative news outlets with a friendly attitude toward the president. In her dissent, Pillard rejected the assertion by the White House and her colleagues that the president suffers damage if news outlets not aligned with his views are permitted into certain restricted spaces to watch the government function. The majority though, insisted that the president, as the head of the executive branch, has wide latitude in that respect. Wrote Rao: 'The Oval Office is the President's office, over which he has absolute control and discretion to exclude the public or members of the press.'
Los Angeles Times
2 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Government drones used in ‘runaway spying operation' to peek into backyards in Sonoma County, lawsuit says
Three residents filed a lawsuit this week against Sonoma County seeking to block code enforcement from using drones to take aerial images of their homes in what the American Civil Liberties Union is calling a 'runaway spying operation.' The lawsuit, filed by the ACLU Wednesday on behalf of the three residents, alleges that the county began using drones with high-powered cameras and zoom lenses in 2019 to track illegal cannabis cultivation, but in the years since, officials have used the devices more than 700 times to find other code violations on private property without first seeking a warrant. 'For too long, Sonoma County code enforcement has used high-powered drones to warrantlessly sift through people's private affairs and initiate charges that upend lives and livelihoods. All the while, the county has hidden these unlawful searches from the people they have spied on, the community, and the media,' Matt Cagle, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, said in a statement. A spokesperson for Sonoma County said the county is reviewing the complaint and takes 'the allegations very seriously.' The lawsuit comes amid a national debate over the use of drones by government agencies who have increasingly relied on the unmanned aircraft during disasters and for environmental monitoring and responding to emergency calls. More recently, some agencies in California and in other states have explored using drones to investigate code enforcement violations. In 2024, nearly half of Sonoma County's drone flights involved non-cannabis violations, including construction without a permit, junkyard conditions and zoning violations, according to data included in the complaint. 'The use of drones over someone's private space raises a question of what is considered private,' said Ari Ezra Waldman, a professor of law at UC Irvine. Waldman said if law enforcement on the ground wants to see on the other side of a tall fence or trees into someone's property they have to get the person's consent or they need probable cause for a warrant. 'Why shouldn't that apply above ground too?' he said. California doesn't have a law that regulates the use of drones by code enforcement agents. In 2015, lawmakers in the state Assembly approved a measure that would have restricted the use of drones over private property without the owner's permission. Then-Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed the bill saying at the time that it could expose hobbyists or commercial users to 'burdensome litigation.' The ACLU argues that the county's use of drones as an investigative tool violates the California Constitution which provides people the right to privacy and against unreasonable searches and seizures. 'I think that our expectations of privacy are based on social norms and people don't normally expect that someone is going to have a super high powered, detailed ability to capture extraordinary detail with a camera that's just buzzing over their property,' Waldman said. 'We shouldn't have to walk around life expecting that just because this technology exists that we have no privacy from anything anymore, from any direction.' The lawsuit also alleges that the county's drone policy has loosened in the past several years. In 2019, the policy required inspectors to receive a complaint about a property before deploying a drone. Now, officials have no such requirement, allowing them instead to launch 'discretionary proactive investigations,' the complaint states. Residents named in the lawsuit say that the drones hovering above their homes have resulted in ongoing privacy concerns and a loss of enjoyment of their property. One plaintiff, Benjamin Verdusco, decided to sell his home after he learned that the county had been taking pictures of his backyard with a drone in 2021, according to the complaint. Another plaintiff, Nichola Schmitz, who is deaf, wasn't able to hear the buzz of the drone hovering above her property on Oct.10, 2023. When a worker on her property pointed it out she 'became confused and worried,' the complaint states. She rushed to her bedroom and closed the curtains, concerned about how long the drone had been there and whether it had seen her naked on her property earlier that day. She alleges the drone made two big loops around her property and, shortly after, a red tag appeared on her gate alleging two violations of the county code — one for illegal grading and another for having on her property an unpermitted dwelling, a small cabin that her father had built on the land in 1981. She spent $25,000 for a contractor to fix the alleged grading issue but still faces $10,000 in fines. ACLU attorneys allege the evidence obtained by the drone was done so unlawfully because officials did not have a search warrant. 'This horrible experience has shattered my sense of privacy and security,' Schmitz said in a statement. 'I'm afraid to open my blinds or go outside to use my hot tub because who knows when the county's drone could be spying on me.' A third plaintiff, Suzanne Brock, confronted county officials after she learned that they had taken detailed aerial photos of her outdoor bathtub and shower that she and her daughter used daily. She expressed concern to inspectors that they might have seen her naked in the bathtub. Code Enforcement Inspector Ryan Sharp told her that 'when we see something like that, we turn around,' according to the complaint. When Brock asked if county officials see people during the flights, Sharp told her yes, according to the complaint, but added that 'we don't put that in the camera footage.'
