Clark County Short Term Rental Injunction Gets Narrowed
On October 7, 2026, a Ninth Circuit panel ruled on the Clark County short term rental injunction, the December 2025 court order that has kept the county from fining unlicensed hosts. The memorandum in Greater Las Vegas Short-Term Rental Association v. County of Clark, No. 26-278, ends with four words: "AFFIRMED in part and REMANDED."
Hosts won the argument and lost some of the remedy. The panel agreed that Clark County, Nevada likely violated owners' due process rights by enforcing a license requirement without a working way to get a license. It also held that the injunction reaches too far, because it protects people who never applied for one.
When we covered the September 14 oral argument and the county's permit backlog, we listed three possible outcomes: affirm, narrow, or reverse. The court chose the middle one. Protection is on track to move from everyone to applicants, and the time to prepare is before the district court rewrites its order.
Key facts
- October 7, 2026: The Ninth Circuit filed its memorandum in No. 26-278, affirming in part and remanding with instructions to narrow the injunction. The case was argued September 14, 2026.
- The finding for hosts: The court wrote: "The portal for short-term rental licenses only opened for a single window between 2022 and 2023." It added that the county has not accepted applications since or finished processing the ones it received.
- The finding for the county: The injunction "effectively authorizes anyone in the County to operate unlicensed short-term rentals," including "nonparties and those who have never applied for a license."
- The exposure: Clark County's own FAQ sets the fine for unlicensed operation at "not less than $1,000 and not more than $10,000 per day."
- Status: The memorandum is marked not for publication, so it is not binding precedent. No source we read gives a date for a new district court order or for the application portal to reopen.
What did the Ninth Circuit decide?
The appeal concerned the preliminary injunction U.S. District Judge Miranda Du issued on December 17, 2025, which blocked the county from enforcing its licensing requirement and the penalties behind it: daily fines, public nuisance declarations, and liens recorded against homes. County commissioners voted on January 6, 2026 to appeal, Rent Responsibly reported. The plaintiffs are the Greater Las Vegas Short-Term Rental Association, individual owners and LLCs, and Airbnb.
A preliminary injunction is a temporary order that holds things in place while a lawsuit proceeds. It is not a final ruling on whether the ordinance is constitutional. The panel split its answer in two.
What the court kept
On the merits, the panel sided with hosts. Its memorandum states that "Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their procedural due process claim" and that they "have shown a protected property interest in leasing their residences on a short-term basis."
The reasoning rests on the county's own record. The license portal opened for a single window between 2022 and 2023. Since then, in the court's words, the county "has not accepted any applications for short-term rentals or finished processing the applications that it has received." Enforcing a license requirement under those conditions "likely violates Plaintiffs' due process rights."
The panel also accepted that the harm is real. It noted that "the Ordinance imposes steep fines and authorizes Clark County to record priority liens," and that violations of constitutional rights protecting property count as irreparable harm.
What the court took away
The problem was scope. The injunction as written lets anyone in unincorporated Clark County operate without a license, including people who are not part of the lawsuit and people who never tried to get licensed. "This goes beyond maintaining the 'status quo,'" the panel wrote.
The court then described what the remedy should accomplish: "Preliminary relief should instead place Plaintiffs in the position they would have enjoyed had Clark County instituted a functional licensing system." The fix for a broken permit system, in other words, is a working permit system.
It offered two designs. First, the injunction "could order Clark County to reopen the portal for applications and specify a time frame wherein applications must be processed." Second, the district court "could also enjoin Clark County from enforcing its licensing requirement against residents who have an application pending with the County."
Two more lines matter. The memorandum records that the county "has represented that it is now willing to reopen its application portal and process applications if a narrower injunction is ordered." And if the county fails to follow through, plaintiffs "could move to hold Clark County in contempt or seek other remedies."
Is the Clark County short term rental injunction still in effect?
The memorandum does not vacate the December 2025 order. The word does not appear in it. The panel remanded "with instructions to narrow the scope of the injunction," which leaves the rewriting to Judge Du. It also said that "further argument at the district court" may be necessary first.
Our reading is that the existing order remains the operative one until the district court enters a replacement. That is our reading of a short document, so a host with real money at stake should confirm it with a Nevada attorney.
The sources are also silent on timing. Neither the memorandum, nor FOX5 Las Vegas's October 8 report, nor the county's short term rental pages give a hearing date, a portal reopening date, or a processing deadline.
Who is covered after the remand, and who is not?
Here is where each group of hosts stands, based only on what the text says.
Hosts with a pending application. This is the group the court had in mind. At the September 14 argument the county had roughly 500 applications still undecided, a figure we sourced in our backlog post. The panel's second design would bar enforcement against "residents who have an application pending," and its first would put a clock on the county's review.
Hosts who never applied. They are covered today and are the ones the panel said should not be. The first design gives them a route: a reopened portal and a real chance to apply. Nothing in the memorandum protects a host who stays outside the system once a narrowed order is in place.
Hosts who were denied. The memorandum says nothing about them.
Hosts who are not plaintiffs or association members. This is the open question. The court's remedy language is written around "Plaintiffs," while its second design refers to "residents" with pending applications. The association told members on September 16, 2026 that the county argued the order was too broad because it covers people who are not in the lawsuit or not members. Whether the narrowed order follows the lawsuit's parties or anyone with an application on file is for the district court to decide.
The fine math if protection lapses
The county's FAQ prices unlicensed operation at $1,000 to $10,000 per day, "to be determined by violation." A host caught outside a narrowed order for one 30 day month would face:
- Low end: 30 × $1,000 = $30,000
- High end: 30 × $10,000 = $300,000
Other violations carry a fine equal to the nightly rental value or $500, whichever is greater, per the same FAQ. For comparison across other cities, see our rundown of what unlicensed operation costs.
What should a Clark County host do now?
- Find proof of any earlier application. The county's FAQ says the original entry window ran from September 13, 2022 to March 13, 2023. Confirmation emails, receipts, and county correspondence are what show an application is pending. Save copies outside your inbox.
- Prepare an application before the portal opens. If the district court adopts the first design, the chance to apply will have a start date. Read the county's current requirements now, including the 1,000 foot separation between licensed rentals and the 2,500 foot separation from resort hotels listed in the FAQ, so you know whether your property can qualify.
- Do not treat the ruling as a green light or a shutdown. No replacement for the December 2025 order has been reported, and the Ninth Circuit agreed the county's process was likely unconstitutional. The blanket protection is also on its way out.
- Check which government you answer to. The county's FAQ states that its ordinance "only applies to residents and properties located in unincorporated Clark County." The City of Las Vegas, Henderson, and North Las Vegas run their own rules, and this case does not touch them.
- Remember the platform side. Separate rules that took effect September 2, 2026 require platforms to verify a county license at booking, as covered in our post on the Clark County booking ban.
Why this matters outside Nevada
An unpublished memorandum binds no other court. The reasoning still travels, because the fact pattern is common: a city requires a permit, caps or pauses the permits, and keeps fining.
A government that demands a license it will not issue has a due process problem, and owners can win an injunction over it. The remedy is access to the process and a deadline for the government. It is not freedom from regulation. The panel said a narrower order would address the harm "without allowing short-term rentals to go completely unregulated."
That is a different path from the takings claims hosts often lead with, one of which failed in the case behind our post on 30 day minimum stay rules.
What to watch next
- The remand. Judge Du will narrow the order, possibly after further argument. Watch the district court docket for a schedule.
- The portal. The county told the court it is willing to reopen applications under a narrower injunction. A reopening announcement would come from the county's Department of Business License.
- The ordinance itself. The county's proposed amendments page lists changes to Chapter 7.100, its short term rental chapter, and to zoning Chapters 30.03 and 30.07, with public comment that closed October 6, 2026. They are proposed, not adopted.
FAQ
Can I legally run an Airbnb in unincorporated Clark County right now?
The county's ordinance still requires a license. Since December 17, 2025, a federal injunction has blocked the county from enforcing that requirement and its fines and liens against owners. The Ninth Circuit's October 7, 2026 memorandum orders that injunction narrowed but does not vacate it, and no replacement order had been reported in the sources we read as of October 13, 2026.
Did the Ninth Circuit rule for hosts or for the county?
Both, in part. The panel agreed hosts are likely to win their procedural due process claim because the county never ran a functioning licensing system. It agreed with the county that the injunction was too broad because it covers people who never applied for a license.
When will Clark County reopen short term rental license applications?
No date has been set. The memorandum says the county represented it is willing to reopen its portal and process applications if a narrower injunction is ordered, and the court suggested the district court could require that with a processing time frame.
Does the ruling apply inside the City of Las Vegas?
No. The case concerns Clark County's ordinance, which the county says applies only in unincorporated areas. Las Vegas, Henderson, and North Las Vegas have separate short term rental rules.
The record is yours to keep
The hosts best placed after this ruling are the ones who can show they applied. The same holds on every channel: license status, application receipts, and booking records belong in the host's own files, whether a reservation comes through a platform or a direct booking site built on Haven. Haven is not a law firm, and nothing here is legal advice.
