Mack v. Williams, et al.

When Sonjia Mack arrived at the High Desert State Prison in Nevada to visit her boyfriend, corrections officers escorted her to an administrative building where they ordered her to remove all of her clothing and strip-searched her. The officers never told her that she could refuse the strip search and leave the facility.

Although nothing illegal was discovered in the course of the invasive and dehumanizing search, the officers refused to allow Ms. Mack to visit her boyfriend, ordered her to leave and later suspended her visiting privileges entirely. The officers gave Ms. Mack no reason for these actions and no instructions on how to appeal them.

Ms. Mack brought suit over the incident in federal court, which then certified several questions to the Nevada Supreme Court, including whether there is a private right of legal action under two provisions of the Nevada state constitution that are comparable to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. constitution and, if so, what immunities state actor defendants could raise in response to such legal action.

The Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center filed an amicus brief in support of Ms. Mack, urging the Nevada Supreme Court to reject the doctrine of qualified immunity – a federal doctrine that permits law enforcement, prison officials and other government officials to violate people’s constitutional rights with virtual impunity. The amicus brief explains how the doctrine is not only unjust but is also unworkable and untethered to any statutory or historical justification.

On Dec. 29, 2022, the Nevada Supreme Court decided that there is a private right of action for money damages to vindicate violations of search-and-seizure rights under the Nevada Constitution and that – as MJC’s amicus brief urged – no qualified immunity defense is available. This decision brings us one step closer to ensuring law enforcements and corrections officers are liable to those they harm – like Ms. Mack – when they violate civil rights.