PAHRUMP (KTNV) — Pahrump Justice of the Peace Michele Fiore is asking the Nevada Supreme Court to speed up her appeal, according to new court documents.
A motion filed on Friday states Fiore is requesting the court expedite its review and resolution of the case or enjoin the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline's suspension.
"Judge Fiore plans to run for reelection next year; the filing period opens in January 2026. Without this court's urgent review, her election will be clouded by misinformation given her current suspended status that is the subject of this appeal," Fiore's attorneys stated in the motion. "The judicial candidate filing period is very narrow. After little more than a week, the voters in Nye County will be informed who they may choose to be a Justice of the Peace in Pahrump. Voters aware of Judge Fiore's current suspension will likely presume she is ineligible and/or unfit for the bench."
Fiore's attorneys also argue that Nye County would continue to be short a judge if her suspension stays in place.
"Already a small judicial office, the citizens of Pahrump must not endure the understaffing of its justice system," the motion states. "Without Judge Fiore's reinstatement, Pahrump will suffer significant delays in the administration of justice due to a backlog of cases. Pahrump Justice Court only has one other judge. Or, in the alternative, Pahrump taxpayers will continue to foot the bill for pro tempore judges substituting for Judge Fiore, who remains salaried."
MAY 2025: Steve Sebelius explains Michele Fiore's suspension post-presidential pardon
Attorneys for the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline dispute Fiore's claims, according to a motion that was filed on Monday.
"The fact that she is currently suspended from office does not prohibit her from filing for re-election. Judge Fiore would only be ineligible to register for election if she was 'removed or retired from any judicial office by the Commission,' which has not occurred," the motion states. "Judge Fiore also claims that she will be irreparably harmed in her election efforts if the public knows of her judicial suspension. This argument also fails because the Commission is statutorily required to make all hearings concerning suspension public, and all orders regarding suspension public."
And as for how fast the issue is working through the court system, attorneys for the Commission argue "this is a problem of Judge Fiore's own making."
"Judge Fiore sought and obtained a stay from this Court of the Commission's investigation, thereby prohibiting the Commission from completing its investigation and ascertaining if a formal statement of charges should be filed," the motion states.
Attorneys for the Commission also argued they have a duty to investigate after any charges are filed against judges.
"There is a risk of harm to the public if a judge who is otherwise properly suspended is reinstated to the bench," the motion states. "As both this Court and other courts have held, the fact of a guilty verdict creates an appearance of impropriety that warrants discipline of public officers."
You may remember the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline was looking into complaints against Fiore, but the Nevada Supreme Court stayed proceedings on July 2.
That was after a federal jury found her guilty of six counts of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Fiore was accused of funneling money from charitable and political causes into accounts for her own personal use and spending it on things like living expenses, plastic surgery and her daughter's wedding.
Following the conviction, the commission modified her suspension from the bench and took away her annual judicial salary, which is about $90,000. The commission stated that was because they had received additional complaints against Fiore, which they were looking into.
October 2024: Michele Fiore found guilty of defrauding donors in federal trial
Then, in April, President Donald Trump pardoned Fiore, who has maintained her innocence throughout court proceedings.
Fiore's attorneys argue that pardon should be enough to clear her from any future discipline.
"She received an unconditional presidential pardon for actions preceding her appointment to the bench," her attorneys wrote. "The basis of her appeal is that the Commission lacks jurisdiction over these actions."
However, the Commission didn't agree.
"In Nevada, the effect of a pardon does not erase the historical fact of the conviction. ... A pardon of a conviction does not preclude discipline by licensing authorities," the motion states. "The Commission's proceedings are not a punishment, but a consequence."
According to the Nevada Supreme Court docket, no hearing dates have been scheduled in this case and there is no timeline on when the court could hand down a ruling.