Nevadans, like voters in many states, have chosen to legalize marijuana for medicinal and recreational use. In Nevada, these changes—adopted through citizen ballot initiatives and, in the case of medical marijuana, enshrined in the Nevada Constitution—were intended to ensure that marijuana is regulated much like alcohol and that law enforcement resources are focused on violent crime, not the prosecution of non-violent drug offenses. Despite these legal changes, Nevada’s Board of Pharmacy continues to regulate marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance for purposes of state law, akin to the Board’s treatment of cocaine and fentanyl. The Board’s scheduling designation for marijuana has enormous implications for criminal defendants in Nevada since state law makes it a felony to possess or engage in certain other activity with respect to a Schedule I controlled substance, as designated by the Board. This case, brought by an individual and organization harmed by the Board’s scheduling designation for marijuana, involves the question whether the designation violates the Nevada Constitution and state statutes. The ACLU of Nevada is counsel in the case, and the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative is co-counsel on appeal. In August 2024, the Court held that Pool and CEIC lack standing to challenge marijuana's designation as a Schedule I substance but recognized that other individuals could appropriately do so in the future. The Court did not reach the merits in reversing the district court’s positive decision.

This case is part of a nationwide fight against criminalization of poverty and, specifically, debtors' prisons. On June 1, 2017, the ACLU's Racial Justice Program, the ACLU of South Carolina, and Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC filed a federal lawsuit challenging the illegal arrest and incarceration of indigent people in Lexington County, South Carolina, for failure to pay fines and fees, without determining willfulness or providing assistance to counsel. Those targeted by this long-standing practice could avoid jail only if they paid the entire amount of outstanding court fines and fees up front and in full. Indigent people who were unable to pay were incarcerated for weeks to months without ever seeing a judge, having a court hearing, or receiving help from a lawyer. The result was one of the most draconian debtors’ prisons uncovered by the ACLU since 2010.

Does sentencing a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide to a term-of-years sentence under which he will not be eligible for parole until he is 112 years old violate the Eighth Amendment?