Inset: Michele Fiore in an ad seeking to become the Republican nominee for governor of Nevada (Apex Media/Youtube). Inset: President Donald Trump speaks to the press outside the Oval Office of the White House, Monday, April 13, 2026, in Washington (AP Photo/Alex Brandon).
A suspended justice of the peace in Nevada widely known as "Lady Trump" has launched an aggressive legal counteroffensive against state judicial regulators, arguing that a three-count ethics complaint against her constitutes an unconstitutional exercise of power and attempt to "override" the pardon granted to her by President Donald Trump.
In a 14-page motion to dismiss filed last week, Michele Fiore argued that the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline has no authority to retroactively punish her for private conduct that took place before she took the bench.
"The disciplinary commission is charged with upholding the rule of law," the motion states. "As such, it cannot base its actions on personal beliefs, selectively manipulate its own rules, or expand its authority in an active attempt to override the legal effect of a Presidential Pardon, the will of the citizens of Nye County who elected Judge Fiore, and the intentions of the subject donors themselves."
As previously reported by Law&Crime, the commission accused Fiore of violating the Revised Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct by wrongfully retaining approximately $70,000 in donations she allegedly diverted from a memorial fund honoring slain police officers.
Federal investigators previously established that the funds, which were solicited in 2019 while Fiore was a Las Vegas city councilwoman, were instead pocketed and spent on personal expenses including "rent, cosmetic procedures, and her daughter's wedding." Although a federal jury convicted Fiore of seven felonies involving "crimes of fraud and moral turpitude" in October 2024, President Donald Trump granted her a "full and unconditional pardon" weeks before her scheduled sentencing, effectively closing the criminal case.
Despite the sweeping executive clemency, the judicial commission moved forward with professional discipline. The formal charges allege that because the monument was ultimately paid for by a private developer, the original purpose of the donations was "abrogated." Regulators contend that Fiore came under a strict post-investiture legal obligation to either return the money or seek alternative donor instructions, asserting that her refusal to do so amounts to an "unjust enrichment" that destroys public trust in the court system.
Fiore countered that the commission was acting on a novel legal theory that completely upended state constitutional boundaries.
She argues that the commission lacks jurisdiction in the matter because it failed to identify any independent, post-investiture judicial misconduct, relying instead entirely on conduct completed years before Fiore ever assumed her judicial post in Nye County.
"Jurisdiction is not a procedural technicality," the filing states. "It is the constitutional boundary separating lawful authority from governmental overreach. If the Commission's theory were accepted, any unresolved allegation, debt, dispute, or accusation predating judicial service could be converted into an ongoing ethics violation the moment an individual assumes judicial office. Nothing in Nevada law authorizes such limitless power."
The commission, according to Fiore, is attempting to manufacture jurisdiction by mislabeling the unpaid funds as a "continuing misconduct." Fiore asserts that a continuing violation requires a continuing legal duty, emphasizing that she has never been subject to a civil judgment, restitution order, or contractual obligation mandating repayment. Because no underlying law or court order was violated, the defense argues that Fiore could not have "fail[ed] to comply with the law," rendering the first two counts of the complaint facially deficient.
The defense also mounted a sharp attack on the notion that the jury verdict against her automatically created a reasonable perception that Fiore's "honesty, impartiality, temperament or fitness to serve as a judge" had been "adversely affected," noting that the commission itself previously determined that proceeding solely on the guilty verdict was premature.
Furthermore, regulators previously rescinded Fiore's suspension without pay following Trump's presidential pardon, which Fiore asserts as proof that the verdict alone cannot serve as the foundation for professional discipline.
Fiore remains suspended with pay while seeking reelection.
Follow Law&Crime:
Comments