Clark County Office of the Coroner v. Las Vegas Review-Journal

August 20, 2018

The Reporters Committee and 11 media organizations filed an amicus brief in support of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which is seeking juvenile autopsy records from the Clark County Office of the Coroner under the Nevada Public Records Act so that it may report on patterns of fatal abuse or neglect of children. The Las Vegas Review-Journal prevailed below, and the Office of the Coroner appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court, arguing that the records are not available under the NPRA.  The amicus brief highlights the important reporting that has been done using autopsy reports, including stories about the health and safety of children, official misconduct, occupational health, and government fraud.  The amicus brief argues that the position of the Office of the Coroner, if adopted, would impede news reporting on matters of public concern.

Las Vegas Review-Journal and Associated Press v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada

February 14, 2018

A Nevada district court judge ordered the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Associated Press to refrain from reporting on and to destroy copies of an anonymized autopsy report obtained through a public records request. The news outlets filed a petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus in the Nevada Supreme Court to dissolve the prior restraint, and the Reporters Committee, along with the Nevada Press Association, filed a proposed amicus brief in support of that petition. The brief explains the significant news value in reporting on anonymized autopsy reports and the dangerous nature of the district court's gag order, which erroneously elevates purported privacy concerns over long-established First Amendment protections. The brief also focuses on the implications of the gag order for journalists and other members of the public who request records under the Nevada Public Records Act.


Letter to Nevada State Assembly on Proposed Revisions to Anti-SLAPP Law

April 23, 2015

Nevada Senate Bill 444, introduced in the Legislature with the support of casino owner Steve Wynn, aimed to scale back the protections of the state's anti-SLAPP law. The bill quickly passed the Senate and was under consideration by the Assembly Committee on Judiciary when the Reporters Committee wrote its letter.

The Reporters Committee argued that, by making it easier for plaintiffs seeking to stifle public debate by embroiling speakers in meritless, protracted litigation, SB444 would chill speech on matters of interest and importance to the public. Nevada's anti-SLAPP law is strong in its protection of speech and special interests should not be able to weaken it to serve their own ends.

Fast-moving bill would weaken Nevada anti-SLAPP law's protections

Kimberly Chow | Libel | News | April 22, 2015
April 22, 2015

A bill modifying Nevada’s anti-SLAPP law, pushed by hotel and casino company Wynn Resorts, has made its way through the Nevada Senate Judiciary Committee and has been passed unanimously by the Senate. Though its proponents frame it as striking a balance between free speech and the right to petition, Senate Bill 444 essentially eviscerates the protections given to speakers under the anti-SLAPP law by modifying wording and key clauses that allow speakers to efficiently fight back against lawsuits intended to chill speech. If the state assembly also passes the bill and it is signed by the governor, speakers in that state will have real problems defending against these attacks without the help of what is currently one of the strongest anti-SLAPP laws in the nation.

Nevada Supreme Court allows access to state retirement records

Latara Appleby | Freedom of Information | News | November 18, 2013
November 18, 2013

The Nevada Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the public should be able to access certain reports in the state Public Employees Retirement System (PERS).

The Reno Gazette-Journal submitted a public records request to PERS in 2011 seeking the names of all individuals collecting pensions, names of their government employers, salaries, hire and retirement dates and amount of their pension payment.


August 1, 2012

Summary of statute(s): An individual who has the consent of at least one party to an in-person conversation can lawfully record it or disclose its contents, but the consent of all parties is required to record a telephone conversation. An exception may exist, however, for a telephone recording made with the prior consent of only one of the parties to the communication in an emergency situation in which it is impractical to obtain a court order. Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 200.620, 200.650 (2011).


May 1, 2012


Delinquency proceedings: Juvenile delinquency hearings are open to the public in Nevada unless the judge determines that closure or partial closure is in the best interests of the child or the public. In those cases, only people with a direct interest in the case may be admitted. Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 62D.010 (West 2011).

Nevada revises rules on camera access to courts

Derek Green | Secret Courts | Feature | August 5, 2011
August 5, 2011

The Nevada Supreme Court this week revised the state court rule on cameras in the courtroom.

Among the revisions is the addition of an express presumption in favor of some "electronic coverage" -- defined to include broadcasting, televising, recording or taking of photographs -- in all court proceedings in which the public is allowed. Such access still requires court permission, but the new rule relaxes the deadline for filing such a request from 72 hours before a proceeding to 24 hours.

Reporters Committee position that governance is not speech prevails at high court

Press Release | June 13, 2011
June 13, 2011

The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that requiring elected officials to recuse themselves from governance votes on issues where they have a conflict of interest does not violate First Amendment free speech rights, endorsing a position put forth in a friend-of-the-court brief by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Horse roundup site must be accessible, Reporters Committee argues

Press Release | June 3, 2011
June 3, 2011

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press urged a federal appeals court this week to order a federal trial court to reconsider its decision that a photographer's First Amendment rights were not violated when she was not allowed to photograph the roundup of wild horses on federal land in Nevada.