The Nevada Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday on whether the state’s judicial discipline commission can suspend Michele Fiore from the Nevada bench — or whether her alleged misconduct happened too early for the commission to have jurisdiction.

It’s the latest development in a yearslong legal dispute that involves a federal fraud conviction against Fiore — a prominent supporter of President Donald Trump and former Las Vegas city councilmember, state assemblymember and Republican nominee for state treasurer — and a pardon for her from Trump.

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. It also covered whether the high court can intervene in the case, even though the commission’s suspension is temporary and pending further investigation into Fiore’s conduct.

The court did not issue a ruling, which could have electoral implications. Fiore is running for re-election this year for Pahrump justice of the peace, a position she is unable to fill because of the commission’s suspension.

Fiore, who was present at Thursday’s hearing in Carson City, declined to comment after the arguments. Lawyers for both sides also declined to comment.

In May, the commission — a seven-member panel appointed by the governor, Nevada Supreme Court and State Bar of Nevada — temporarily suspended Fiore with pay, one month after Trump’s pardon of her conviction for using money intended for a fallen police officer’s memorial statue for personal use.

Commission members unanimously decided the suspension was warranted while it investigated new complaints against Fiore, and they said her apparent refusal to reimburse donors she defrauded represents a “current, emergent threat to the judiciary.”

Following the decision, Fiore posted that the ruling “reflects a lack of integrity” and “is based on unverified public perception.” She received letters of support from officials including Clark County Commissioner Tick Segerblom, a Democrat.

Now, Fiore is arguing the suspension was illegal.

“The commission continues to move the goalposts and manipulate the rules in an attempt to discipline Judge Fiore,” Paola Armeni, Fiore’s lawyer, said Thursday.

The case in part revolves around the Nevada law that states the commission’s jurisdiction only covers conduct once someone is a judge (the events of the fraud conviction occurred before her appointment as a Pahrump judge), while the State Bar of Nevada has oversight over pre-office activity.

However, that only applies if someone is a registered lawyer, which Fiore is not — a point that justices focused on Thursday. For all other instances, the law says the commission has “exclusive jurisdiction” over discipline.

“Since Judge Fiore isn't licensed to practice law, [this law] would not apply to her, correct? So the judicial discipline would have exclusive jurisdiction?” Chief Justice Douglas Herndon asked on Thursday.

Armeni responded that even if this law is inapplicable, another one that defines the word “judge” as someone currently presiding over cases means the law does not apply to pre-office conduct.

However, Therese Shanks, the lawyer for the commission, argued this is not a relevant question to the case because commissioners are investigating new complaints against Fiore. 

Shanks added 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.

“She wants the court to find that she can never be investigated,” Shanks said.

Although the commission’s investigation focuses on new complaints, the basis for her suspension focused on her alleged violation of the state’s judicial code of conduct by not reimbursing people she defrauded, including Gov. Joe Lombardo while he was Clark County sheriff.

“[Fiore’s] continuing deceit of the charitable donors and her unjust enrichment at the expense of the slain police officer [statue] harms the public’s perception of the judicial system and its confidence in the system’s legitimacy,” the commission’s suspension order said.

However, Armeni argued that because the commission has connected the suspension to the events at the center of the criminal conviction, its decision is illegal because the initial defrauding of donors happened before she entered office.

“Had she been on the bench when the conduct occurred, I think that’s a different story,” Armeni said.