A Pahrump judge says a state commission is overstepping its bounds — and the Nevada Supreme Court is listening.
Michele Fiore has been a fixture in Nevada Republican politics for years — state assemblywoman, Las Vegas city councilwoman, and now a justice of the peace in Pahrump. She’s also the woman President Trump pardoned last April after a federal jury convicted her of wire fraud.
Now she’s in a new fight and taking it to the state Supreme Court.
What’s Going On?
The Nevada Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday on whether the state’s judicial discipline commission can suspend Fiore from the bench — or whether her alleged misconduct happened too early for the commission to have any say in the matter.
The background:
Prosecutors accused Fiore of defrauding donors of tens of thousands of dollars raised to build a statue of a slain Metropolitan Police Department officer, spending the money on personal expenses, including rent, cosmetic treatments, and her daughter’s wedding. A jury convicted her in October 2024. Then Trump stepped in with a full pardon in April 2025.
You’d think that would settle things. But the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline didn’t see it that way. The commission kept Fiore’s suspension with pay in place, saying that while she received a presidential pardon, commissioners were not precluded “from considering a judge’s ongoing conduct.”
Fiore’s attorney, Paola Armeni, isn’t buying it. Armeni said Thursday:
“The commission continues to move the goalposts and manipulate the rules in an attempt to discipline Judge Fiore,”
Why This Matters to Conservatives
Think about what’s happening here from a limited-government perspective. A presidential pardon is one of the most powerful acts in American constitutional law. If a state commission can just shrug it off and keep punishing someone anyway, what does the pardon even mean?
Fiore was first appointed to the Pahrump Justice Court in December 2022, filling the seat left vacant by the death of Judge Kent Jasperson. She then won election to the seat in June 2024 — before her federal indictment — locking in that term with a voter mandate.
With her current term expiring in early 2027, she’s now running in the 2026 election cycle for a fresh six-year term. In other words, Pahrump voters will decide her future at the ballot box before any state commission does.
But an unelected state commission is effectively overriding that choice — keeping a duly elected judge off the bench while voters wait for bureaucrats to decide her fate. That’s not accountability. That’s a government panel substituting its judgment for the people’s.
Fiore’s team is making the jurisdiction argument clearly. Her attorneys argue that she received:
“an unconditional presidential pardon for actions preceding her appointment to the bench,”
and that:
“The basis of her appeal is that the Commission lacks jurisdiction over these actions.”
The commission’s response came from its attorney, Theresa Shanks. Shanks argued that Trump’s pardon does not resolve the matter because the investigation stems from new complaints, although her conviction came up frequently in Thursday’s hearing.
In other words, the commission says it has fresh reasons to keep looking. Fiore’s side says those “new complaints” are just old wine in new bottles — the same underlying facts dressed up differently.
What the Commission Says
The commission said Fiore has provided no evidence to suggest she has paid back or intends to pay back the defrauded victims. That so-called “continuing deceit,” along with her “unjust enrichment at the expense” of the statute, harms the public’s perception of the judicial system, the commission wrote.
In other words, they’re saying a judge who won’t make her victims whole is a problem for public trust in the courts, regardless of what the president did.
That’s not an unreasonable concern. But it raises a big question: how much can a state bureaucracy pile on after a federal pardon has been granted?
The Bigger Picture
Thursday’s hearing largely revolved around whether the commission had jurisdiction to impose the suspension, a decision that could in part hinge on the fact that Fiore is not a licensed attorney.
That’s a dry legal detail, but it matters. If the law only allows the commission to discipline sitting judges for things they did as judges, then everything here may be out of bounds.
The Nevada Supreme Court has not yet ruled. Meanwhile, Fiore is running for re-election to her Pahrump seat. Her filing argued that voters aware of her current suspension would likely presume she is ineligible and/or unfit for the bench, depriving the public of the opportunity to fully evaluate an incumbent judge.
What You Can Do
Watch this case closely. Stay engaged with the Nye County Commission, which has already voted unanimously to support Fiore.
The Supreme Court’s ruling will set a precedent for how much power Nevada’s judicial watchdog actually has, and whether a presidential pardon means anything at the state level.
It’s a test of whether voters — not bureaucrats — get the final say on who serves them. And it’s a test of whether an unelected commission can keep moving the goalposts until it gets the outcome it wants.
And come November, pay attention to who’s on your ballot in Nye County. That’s probably where this fight ultimately gets settled.
The voters of Pahrump deserve to make that call. Not a commission in Carson City.
The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Nevada News & Views. This article was written with the assistance of AI. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
