The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department has announced a new agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that will align the Department with federal authorities. In an apparent reversal of standing policy, Metro Police have signed a memorandum of agreement to revive the department’s partnership with U.S. ICE. The new 287(g) agreement is under the Warrant Service Officer program, which enables local officers to execute administrative warrants for people already in jail.
The 287(g) program is described by ICE as a partnership with local law enforcement to remove criminal aliens from the U.S.
“When an inmate is prepared for release, officers inside the Clark County Detention Center will serve an ICE warrant on the inmate and hold them for no more than 48 (additional) hours,” said a Department spokesperson. Metro policy previously dictated that the department wouldn’t delay the release of inmates for ICE. Despite the new agreement, Metro stated there will be no additional changes to its immigration policy.
Metro’s spokesperson said the agreement, which is currently pending with ICE, was signed Friday, a day after “Las Vegas City” was listed as a sanctuary jurisdiction by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. That list has since been deleted.
“He that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him And makes me poor indeed.” (Shakespeare’s Othello)
Three and a half years into a defamation and wrongful termination civil suit, on May 27, 2025, former City of Mesquite, NV Police Chief Joseph MaQuade Chesley and his wife sat quietly behind his attorney as Clark County, Nevada District Judge Timothy Williams in referring to continued discovery delays told the City defense attorney:
“I would have expected better from a municipality, the City of Mesquite. “I have not seen anything like this coming from the city government. I find that shocking.”
Defamation
Chesley and his wife, Shayla May, are defending themselves against the aftermath of what his attorney, Phillip Trenchak, described as unsubstantiated:
“Sustained, vicious series of attacks involved the dissemination of false and defamatory statements of a criminal sexual nature by Mesquite’s former City Attorney Bob Sweetin.”[i]
In a September 2023 civil suit against The City of Mesquite, Aaron Baker, Robert Sweetin, Davison Van Cleve PC [Sweetin’s law firm], and various unnamed individuals, Trenchak outlined the serious nature of defamation against the Chesleys.
Trenchak pointed to the extreme economic and emotional harm, headaches, sleeplessness, and various physical and mental distress imposed on his clients by the defendants, adding that such emotional distress impacted Shayla Chesley’s ability to conceive and required fertility treatment.
The attorney added that the serious nature of the allegations impacted Chesley’s ability to continue his career since Sweetin’s unsubstantiated charges portraying him as a sexual deviant called into question his professional and personal conduct, seeking to impugn his reputation and standing in the community.
2007: Chesley hired
On June 18, 2007, Joseph MaQuade Chesleyleft the St. George, Utah, Police Department to join the Mesquite Police Department. He first served under then-Police Chief Doug Law and later under Troy Tanner, who replaced Law upon his retirement.
2014 Sweetin rose to City Attorney
In January 2014, Mayor Allan Litman, Council members W.Geno Withelder, George Rapson, Kraig Hafen, Rich Green, and Cynthia’ Cindi’ Delaney promoted Deputy City Attorney Robert Sweetin to replace
Retiring city attorney Cheryl Hunt. Sweetin moved quickly to eliminate the deputy position and consolidate legal power for the City.
2014 Chesley-Sweetin Business Partnership
In late August 2014, the Chesley brothers, MaQuade, MaClinn, and MaKay, entered into a partnership with Courtney Sweetin, Robert Sweetin’s wife, to open “The Splash Pad” in Mesquite, serving snow cones, drinks, cookies, and other refreshments. According to Courtney Sweetin, her family has been friends with Chesley’s since moving to Mesquite. [ii]
2017 The Tobler Case
While not directly involved in the Chesley issue, Sweetin’s handling of the Tobler Case raised concerns.
In 2017, 16-year-old Kylie Tobler of Mesquite met 19-year-old Broc Smith, which eventually led to a relationship during which Tobler claimed Smith sexually assaulted her, after which her father, Shawn Tobler, a member of the Mesquite Fire Department, decided to press criminal charges. According to Tobler, he met with the Chief of Police Tanner, after which Tanner agreed to send the case to Sweetin.
The resulting court proceeding ended with Smith pleading guilty to a charge of Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor and a Temporary Protective Order forbidding Smith from having any further contact with Tobler until she reached 18.
2019, Chesley became the Chief, and Baker became the City Manager.
Following Tanner’s retirement, Mesquite Mayor Litman and City Council members Annie Black, George Gault, George Rapson, Brian Wursten, and Sandra Ramaker met on Tuesday, February 12, 2019. They appointed Chesley as the new Chief of Police.
When appointed, City Manager Andy Barton said that Chesley had the respect of the men and women throughout the department and that “he will do an excellent job as chief.” [iii]
However, following Chesley’s appointment, Sweetin, in referring to the police officers attesting to Chesley’s hearing during the appointment meeting, sent text messages to police officers under Chesley’s command which read: “Kiss ass” and “Were you guys threatened with your jobs? Adding that, “I don’t think I’ve ever seen a turnout like this for an appointment.”
Shortly thereafter, Barton retired, and Litman recommended that Deputy City Manager and long-time employee Aaron Baker replace him. Council members Gault, Rapson, and Wursten agreed.
However, Councilwoman Ramaker supported the appointment of Christian Clegg, the Deputy City Manager of Stockton, California, whom a hiring committee had interviewed as part of a replacement search after learning that Barton would retire.
2020 Sweetin vs. Litman and Chesley meets with Baker
In 2020, Sweetin filed to run against Litman for the Mayor’s position. In reporting his source of income besides the City Attorney position, Sweetin’s ownership interest is in the local Splash Pad, and he earns income as an attorney from Davison Van Cleve, LLC, while also serving as a counselor for the Small Business Development Corporation.
Among smaller donations, on June 15, 2020, Sweetin received $10,000 in contributions from Mesquite Gaming, LLC, and on August 26, 2020, Litman received $5,000 from the same source.
As the political rivalry between Sweetin and Litman continued, Chesley asked City Manager Baker to stop Sweetin’s attacks against him.
After that failed on September 24, 2020, Chesley filed a charge with the Director of Human Resources, which resulted in Mayor Litman, along with Council members Black, Gault, Rapson, Ramaker, and Wursten, contracting with Littler Mendelsohn to investigate the allegations made by Chesley against Sweetin. Littler Mendelsohn found that Chesley’s complaint against Sweetin was substantiated. [iv],[1]
2020 MPOA supports Litman
In September 2020, two MPD officers made claims of harassment against Sweetin, which were deemed legitimate. However, despite a recommendation for disciplinary action, none was taken.
Also in September, the Mesquite Police Officers Association (MPOA) [2] endorsed Litman. In a series of mailers, the association detailed the Tobler case and reported the belief that Sweetin abused his powers in prosecuting Smith years earlier.
The authors of the mailer said, “We believe this young man [referring to Broc Smith] was criminally charged [in the Tobler case] for an offense he should never have been charged with.”
2020 Litman retains Mayor Position
Litman retained his seat in the November 3, 2020, election with nearly 67 percent of the vote, or 6,271 votes, vs. 3,098 votes for Sweetin.
Robison reported that the letter criticized Sweetin in several areas where the MPOA membership had disagreed with Sweetin over the years. Robison wrote that the letter sparked a community political battle that became emotional, bitter, and contentious over the final four weeks leading up to the election.
2020 Sweetin fired
Shortly after being reelected as Mayor on December 8, 2020, Litman, along with Council members Wes Boger (who replaced George Rapson), Gault, Ramaker, and Wursten, held a special meeting to consider Sweetin’s retention.
After hearing pro and con comments about Sweetin, Wursten moved to retain Sweetin as the City Attorney. The motion went without a second, followed by a motion by Councilwoman Ramaker to terminate Sweetin without cause. Councilman Gault seconded the motion, which passed with Mayor Litman and Councilman Boger joining Ramaker and Gault. Wursten, of course, voted against the termination. [vi]
Simultaneously, Ramaker, Gault, and Boger agreed to terminate the retainer agreement with Sweetin’s Law Firm, Davison Van Cleve PC, with Wursten opposing.
2021 Rumors and Lawsuit
In the meantime, the unsubstantiated allegations against Chesley continued as rumors.
In April 2021, Barbara Ellestad reported on her local news website, [Mesquite Citizens Journal (MCJ) (now closed) [3]], that an investigation by the Nevada Attorney General was underway into allegations of inappropriate conduct by Chesley.
Ellestad alleged that unnamed sources accused Chesley of authoring questionable texts, holding conversations, and exchanging photos with teenage girls in the community between 2015 and late 2019. Ellestad did not name sources or accusers in her MCJ article.
Chesley denied the accusation, and without substantiating evidence, Ellestad removed the article from her website.
On April 27, 2021, Mayor Litman, Council members Boger, Karen Dutkowski (who in 2020 filled the vacated seat formerly held by George Rapson), Gault, Ramaker, and Wursten (via Phone) held a council meeting during which they heard from individuals concerned about attacks against Chesley.
Amanda Adams addressed the anger she felt about the accusations against Chesley. She said she had worked with him at the Splash Pad and found him an exceptional, professional, and respectful boss. She said the working environment was like a family, and she never felt intimated or uncomfortable around him.
Tayler Mayer, who also worked with Chesley and his wife Shayla at the Splash Pad, joined Adams in commending Chesley for his thoughtfulness, polite, and courteous behavior.
Brooke Lee joined Adams and Mayer in appreciating Chesley’s professionalism while she worked at the Splash Pad as a high school student.
Mesquite police officers who worked with or knew Chesley spoke highly of his kindness and professionalism, not only during his tenure with the St. George Police Department before joining Mesquite but also as an Officer and Chief of the Mesquite Department.
Wyatt Oliver, a Mesquite Police Officer with a long-standing working relationship with Chesley, said there is nothing remotely factual in the allegations against the Chief. Oliver said that as an MPOA member, he was “sick and tired of the City Manager’s office bulldozing us in every aspect and everything we try to do.”
Others spoke on behalf of Chesley, including Rabbi Arthur Zuckerman, who reported on the number of times he had met with Chief Chesley, whom Zuckerman described as above reproach. Zuckerman added that ruining someone’s name is “the worst thing you can do to someone.”
Following the numerous accolades, Baker addressed the group. He informed them that he had received a complaint from a citizen and referred the issue to the Attorney General’s office for investigation.
A month later, on May 12, 2021, Baker resigned as Mesquite City Manager. According to Robison of the Mesa Valley Progress, poor relations between Baker and the Mesquite Police Officers Association (MPOA) boiled over when Ellestad published unsubstantiated allegations against Chesley.[vii]
Thirteen days later, on May 25, 2021, Mayor Litman addressed the issue of the Chesley rumors.
“There are a few in Mesquite that live by rumors and ignore the truth,” Litman told those attending the May 25, 2021 City Council Meeting.[viii]
“Rumors were spread about our Police Chief by some of those haters. I know these are harsh words, but this is the truth,” Litman said. “Let me dispel all these rumors once and for all,” he continued, adding, “What was ever alleged about our Police Chief MaQuade Chesley or even hinted about were always false, but the haters didn’t care, the fools that read those rumors and believed them were idiots.”
Litman went on, “If I offended some of those that I referred to, I meant to. The rumor mongers hoped to open a can of worms even though they knew there were no worms in the can.”
Litman further addressed the rumors by reading into the public record a May 18th letter to City Manager Aaron Baker from Attorney General (AG) Aaron Ford in which the AG said,
“Dear Mr. Baker, thank you for contacting the office of the Nevada Attorney General regarding your complaint. Since your communication with our office, your complaint has been forwarded and reviewed by our investigative unit. We conducted a preliminary investigation but found no evidence of any criminal violation. As such, we believe that this matter has been addressed at the appropriate levels within the law enforcement system. Accordingly, we have closed our investigation concerning your matter, and no criminal prosecution will be pursued.
Litman said that:
“This letter should put to rest the falsehoods that were alleged about our Chief forever. No one, and I mean no one, whitewashed anything”. He continued, “There was never anything to investigate, not in the past, not in the present, not ever, just rumors; they were not even firsthand or secondhand.
2021 Pack appointed City Attorney
During the October 12, 2021, City Council meeting, Mayor Al Litman nominated Bryan Pack as the City Attorney to replace Interim City Attorney Adam Anderson, who served since the termination of Sweetin. Councilmembers Boger, Dutkowski, George Gault, Ramaker, and Wursten agreed.
Before the appointment, Pack served on the Ivins, Utah Planning Commission for several years. He has also served as Assistant City Attorney for the City of St. George, Utah.
2021 Chesley goes to Court
Nine days later, on October 21, 2021, Chesley, through his attorney Phillip Trenchak, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against the City of Mesquite, Ellestad, and Baker alleging defamation, discrimination based on religion and sex, retaliation due to religion (LDS) and sex, and intentional negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Trenchak emphasized that: “Chesley didn’t want to sue his employer.”“He loves his job, and he loves working in Mesquite.”
However, Tranchak said the onslaught of attacks just kept going on, “So this was what we had to do to protect MaQuade and his family,” the attorney said.
In December, Ellestad filed a motion to dismiss all claims against her in the case. The motion cited a Nevada law preventing Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP). [4]
A week after Ellestad’s motion, Chesley’s attorney filed a separate motion to dismiss Ellestad, which Judge Anne R. Traum, a Biden appointment, granted but “without prejudice.” [5]
On January 27, attorney Marcus Lee, managing partner of the O’Hagan Meyer) and Inku Nam (of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP), representing the City and Baker, filed a motion to dismiss the claims. The motion claims that even presuming all the allegations made by Plaintiff were true, there were “no actionable claims for discrimination or retaliation based on gender or religion, deprivation of civil liberty… or defamation.”
Furthermore, the defense attorneys asserted that Chesley has not shown any substantial burden on his Free Exercise Rights. The harms he alleges—a “destroyed” reputation at his church and consummate discomfort worshipping there—are subjective, and the Ninth Circuit is clear that “a subjective chilling effect on free exercise rights is not sufficient to constitute a substantial burden.”
2022 Jankowski as City Manager
During the July 12, 2022, Mesquite City Council meeting, council members Boger, George Gault (via Phone), Ramaker, and Brian Wursten. Ratified the appointment of Peter Jankowski as the City Manager to replace Andy Barton, who had returned to the City Manager seat after the resignation of Baker
Additionally, during the meeting, Adam Leverenz, who frequently addresses the Council, discussed the City’s consideration and approval of contracts for its insurance renewals for fiscal years 2022 through 2023.
Leverenz informed those attending the council meeting that the Dixie Leavitt agency and the Travelers Companies, as insurers, provided seven types of liability insurance, including general liability, public entity management liability, and law enforcement liability.
Leverenz pointed to an estimated cost of $1,900,668 for fiscal years 2021 and 2022, with Premiums for the upcoming period for fiscal years 2022 through 2023. $1,126,186. He said he hoped that the coverage would address issues surrounding the Mesquite Police Department. Boger, Dutkowski, Gault (via Phone), Ramaker, and Wursten approved the insurance coverage.
2022 Elections
The November 3, 2022, elections resulted in the election of Paul Wanlass to replace Dutkowski, Karen Fielding to replace Ramaker, and Pattie Gallos to take the seat previously held by Gault. They joined Councilman Boger, Wursten, and Mayor Litman.
2023 Civil Rights Action dismissed, actions filed in district court.
On August 14, 2023, Judge Traum granted a motion, with prejudice, [6] to dismiss allegations of federal civil rights violations that she deemed unsubstantiated. However, the Judge declined to address potential state law violations which were beyond her Court’s jurisdiction. [ix]
Therefore, on September 23, 2023, Trenchak, along with co-counsels Victoria C. Beasley, took the Joseph and Shayla Chesley defamation case (A-23-877738-B) against the City of Mesquite, Aaron Baker, Robert Sweetin, Davison Van Cleve PC, and other unnamed individuals to the Nevada District Court. [x]
In addition to those named in the civil action, Trenchak reported that: “City Councilmen Brian Wursten was actively communicating with former disgraced City Attorney Robert Sweetin, which may or may not have been related to the dissemination of flyers further imputing Chesley of serious sexual criminal activity victimizing minors, which was documented as occurring as recently as April of 2023.”
Chesley’s attorney added that: “The former City Attorney’s dissemination of false criminal accusations, which were a key component in Robert Sweetin’s campaign to destroy the career and reputation of MaQuade Chesley, without a shred of evidence, continues. “
In an amended complaint filed on January 5, 2024, Tremchak added Wursten to the list of defendants.
In this case, Trenchak for the Chesley asks “For compensatory damages in the principal amount above fifteen thousand ($15,000) dollars to be proven at trial; For punitive damages in the principal amount in excess of fifteen thousand ($15,000) dollars to be proven at trial; For special damages in the principal amount in excess of fifteen thousand ($15,000) dollars to be proven at trial; For attorney’s fees and costs incurred; For all damages in an amount to be proved at trial; For costs of suit herein incurred; For reasonable interest on amounts due; and any such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.”
This move by Chesley and their attorneys had the immediate impact of increasing Pack’s workload while also raising the cost of litigation, as represented by Travelers Insurance and the O’Hagan Law firm, in the dispute involving the City, Baker, and Wursten. At the same time, Laura, Elizabeth Rios, from Kemp Jones LLP, defended Sweetin and his Davison, Va., Cleve law firm in litigating issues.
As a practical matter, continuing the disputes in the legal system brought forth a series of costly complaints, amendments, summons, affidavits, numerous motions, default judgments, rule compliance hearings and conferences, stipulation oppositions, orders, and notices, all of which potentially lead to a trial set for September 8, 2026.
2024 Mesquite administrative shakeup
On February 20, 2024, Mesquite City Manager Peter Jankowski presented a letter of resignation to Mayor Litman, effective immediately.
Two months later, in April, Bryan Pack left his position as the City of Mesquite’s City attorney to return to Ivins as their city attorney.
Two months later, on June 25, 2024, Edward O. Dickie III was sworn in the City Council Chambers.
Then, on July 23, 2024, the Council appointed Michael Branum to fill Pack’s position. Branum has served as Deputy City Attorney for the City of Mesquite since October 2022.
2024 Mesquite Council rejects settlement
On October 18, 2034, The Mesquite City Council held a special meeting to consider a settlement-mediation offer in Chesley’s litigation against the City and former city attorney Sweetin, former city manager Baker, City Councilman Wursten, and others.
In attendance was Mayor Pro Tem Gallo, who chaired the session in the absence of Mayor Litman. Council members Wursten, Boger, Fielding, and Wanlass (via Phone). Dickie and Branum also attended.
Daniel Miller, during public comments, asked why Wursten, a litigant in the case, did not recuse himself from voting on the issue. Gallo agreed that Wursten should recuse.
Mike Benham asked the Council to “do the right thing. Settle it and move on,” adding, “We have had enough of this adding that we are taxpayers here, we put you guys up to do the job, get it settled.”
Boger agreed, pointing to payments to the insurance company totaling $78,000, with another fee of $25,000 due in June, for which the insurance company would cover the representation of Wursten and Baker. “Everyone knows,” Boger said. “This is just leftover stuff from the 2020 (Sweetin vs Litman) Mayoral race.”
Boger motioned to accept the offer, with judgment contingent upon the insurance company’s payment [undetermined] of the claim. “If they do not,” he said, I propose mediation. Gallos seconded the motion.
Wursten said, “For me, for multiple reasons, we absolutely should not accept this offer, and I don’t believe we should go to mediation.”
With Boger and Gallo accepting, Wursten, Fielding, and Wanlass voted against the motion to accept the offer.
Boger, for the record, protested that the meeting should have been held in closed session “for doing more deliberating, not in a public forum.” Wursten agreed.
Boger motioned to go to mediation and not accept the offer of judgment. Gallo seconded the motion, but it failed with three votes against. [xi]
2024 City Council Elections
A month later, in the November 2024 election, Jesse E. Whipple defeated incumbent Al Litman, and Kevin Parris took the seat previously held by Wursten. Wanlass and Boger, despite their competition, retained their seats.
2024 MPOA no-confidence vote
In an apparent reversal of support in November 2024, Del Schlosser, the president of the Mesquite Police Officers’ Union (MPOU), stated that the Union had voted no confidence in Chesley.
Schlosser noted that Chesley had been retaliatory toward people “because of comments that they made or things that they’ve brought forward.”
He added, “There has been some hiring that is believed to be close friends, based on his comments that they were, it’s the perception that it was rushed through, if you will, in the hiring processes.”
Following the no-confidence vote, Dickie placed Chelsey on administrative leave.
2025 Chesley Termination Process
On Friday, January 10, 2025, Dickie sent an email to Chief Chesley, removing him from administrative leave based on conversations he allegedly had with the independent investigator tasked with investigating the multiple allegations of misconduct made against the Chief.
A few days later, on Wednesday, January 22 Dickie stated to Channel 8 NEWSNOW reporter James Schaeffer that he terminated Chief MaQuade Chesley on Tuesday.
Dickie said in the statement that “The city’s internal investigation into Chesley has been a topic of discussion during recent city council meetings, with officials fielding questions and concerns surrounding the police chief in recent months.“[xii]
On January 29, 2025, the City served Chesley’s counsel with a “Notice of Meeting to Consider Character, Misconduct, Competence, or Health” under NRS 241.033, to take place on February 11, 2025.
A few days later, the City Council rescinded the notice pending a City Council scheduled for March 17, 2025.
In a widely distributed February recording, Dickie said, ‘Guys, I’m going down to Louisiana, I’m going back to the back parishes, and I’m going to find me a 6 foot 5 Black woman chief…'”
In another recording, he asserts he’ll bring back an “Aunt Jemima” should the need arise to replace then-Chief of Police Maquade Chesley. In a third recording made by Chesley, Dickie used the ‘N’ word.
2025 injunctive relief A-25-913815-C
On March 3, Chesley, through his Reno, Nevada attorney Ronald J. Dreher, Esq., filed a complaint against the City of Mesquite seeking declaratory relief and injunctive relief (A-25-913815-C), claiming that the City deprived him of any procedural protection by terminating him without notice or a hearing and failed to implement safeguard Chesley’s due process rights.
The lawsuit claims that the City acted in “bad faith” and violated NRS 289.057 by using a non-law enforcement agency during the investigations into Chesley’s alleged misconduct. It also claims that his termination was done at least in part due to the City’s “questionable, discriminatory and retaliatory employment practices.”
Chesley’s lawsuit also claimed that the City violated the terms of his contract by terminating him without cause, as he was not an at-will employee; “therefore, the termination process required a pre-termination hearing, a post-termination hearing, and a reasonable opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.”
Chesley, through Dreher, also claims that his termination was done at least in part due to the City’s “questionable, discriminatory and retaliatory employment practices.”
2025 Chesley Hearing
On March 17, 2025, Mayor Whipple and Council members Gallo, Fielding, Wanlass, and Parrish heard arguments both for and against Chesley. [7]City Manager Dickie and City Attorney Branum also attended the meeting.
However, Councilwoman Gallow refrained from ratifying the meeting, arguing that, as a police officer, Chief Chesley had certain rights under the Peace Officers Bill of Rights (NRS 289), which the City ignored.
Councilwoman Gallo argued, among other things, that as a result of Branum’s poor advice, the legal entanglements will likely be costly.
Gallo said, “This all could have been avoided if we had proper and competent legal counsel, which we do not. The result now is that the City is in a ridiculously costly litigation that will cost us tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.”
The Councilwoman continued: “That’s not the lawsuit; we will wind up paying and out, including the real strong opportunity that Chief Chesley is going to be very successful with this.”
I really would like not to be a part of any of this. I don’t blame Wes for leaving because this is not worth it, she added.
For his part, Branum said that Chesley, who was not present, “now has the opportunity to present information to the Council, which could be considered in closed session.”
Council member Parrish, despite numerous evidentiary and other hearings in three separate actions, wrongly argued that none of the evidence against former Chief Chesley had been presented to either Judge. Again, Parris wrongly said, “The only thing that has been argued is whether he should obtain an injunction to halt these proceedings.”
Former Mayor Litman told those attending the meeting that this meeting should not take place, as a Federal Judge had ruled that the City of Mesquite had violated NRS 289, along with allegations of an illegal investigation by the City Manager and City Attorney, which will be presented in Chesley’s state court litigation.
“The agenda item to consider the character, misconduct, competence, or physical or mental health of Chief Chesley should die with no second of the motion,” Litman said.
“Don’t go down the same rat hole as your two employees [Dickie and Branum} have done, Litman urged, adding that “I have followed the vilification of the Chief for approximately six years. When those who wanted him out failed, it started again with rumors, and those of the police union that have sided with the Chief and those who had sided with a handful of enemies who would stop at nothing to have him removed.”
“Let me remind you,” Litman added, “anyone commits no crime until formal charges have been brought up, and they have not. If the Chief committed a felony, why has he not been arrested, arraigned, and tried? The reason why? There was no crime.”
“Thankfully,” Litman concluded, “I am no longer here to serve you, and I can sleep peacefully at night, and I seriously wonder how most of you can.”
Councilwoman Fielding moved to ratify the termination of Chesley, with Wanlass adding the second. Parrish joined with the two, and the motion passed. Gallo abstained. [xiii]
2025 Dickie fired
During an April 22, 2025, City Council meeting, Councilwoman Gallo noted a string of “bad decisions” by Dickie, including firing Chesley at the behest of the local police union. “It’s time for this city to start healing,” she said before making the motion to terminate Dickie.
Council members Bill Ennis (who had replaced Boger) along with Wanlass, and Parrish agreed Councilwoman Fielding supported Dickie and blamed the public outcry to fire him on the individuals who recorded his comments,
Dickie’s February “racist” remarks, along with the handling of the termination of Chesley, played a part in the decision to terminate the city manager.
According to Bobbie Green, reporting for the Mesa Valley Progress, Dickie apologized for what he characterized as a poor choice of words and stated that he was not a racist.
Green, in her reporting, said that Council members stated this was a difficult decision to make since Dickie was well-liked, but the majority sided with termination for the sake of the City.
In addition, Green wrote that the City can’t have a city manager who speaks that way and that the City has already received too much negative publicity due to the handling of the Chesley termination.
Green noted that Chesley attended the council meeting and said, “Dickie should be held accountable for what he said.”
2025 Injunctive relief Hearing and order A-25-913815-C
On May 15, 2025, Clark County District Court Judge Nadia Krall heard Chesley’s declaratory and injunctive relief charge (A-25-913815-C) from March 3, regarding Chesley’s claim that the City terminated him without notice or a hearing, thereby violating his due process rights.
At that hearing, Dreher for Chesley made a motion for an order to Show Cause and a Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs.
Additionally, the Court heard Defendant City of Mesquite’s (“City”) Motion for Reconsideration of a previous Court’s Order (1) Granting a Restraining Order, a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and a Motion to Enforce Injunction, and Defendant’s Amended Motion for Reconsideration of Court’s Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Order to Show Cause.
Twelve days later, on May 27, the Mesquite City Council had scheduled, among other things, an action to consider City Attorney Michael Branum’s performance. He resigned before the hearing.
2025 Definition Case Default
On May 30th Trenchak for Chesley filed a motion in Chesley’s defamation case (A-23-877738-B) against the City of Mesquite, Aaron Baker, Robert Sweetin, Davison Van Cleve PC, and other unnamed individuals asking District Judge Timothy Williams to issue a default against the City of Mesquite, former city manager, Aaron Baker and former City Councilman Brian Wursten for “severe pernicious and continuous discover abuses under Nevada; s Civil Procedure ruling 37”.
Judge Williams expressed his concern that the litigation costs of Chesley’s civil cases against the City of Mesquite and other former employees impact his attorneys’ ability to represent him.
Moments later in the hour-long hearing, the Judge awarded attorney fees [without regard to recovery] to Chesley’s attorney.
In awarding attorney fees without regard to recovery, Judge Williams essentially signaled a belief that the City of Mesquite officials and the defense attorneys they represented maintained, without reasonable ground, various delaying actions to harass the attorneys in presenting Chesley’s case. 2005 order A-25-913815-C
Then, on June 3, Judge Krall granted the Plaintiff’s Motion for Order to Show Cause and Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs. Additionally, the Judge denied the Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Orders and previous motions.
Court Order
The Court granted the Plaintiff’s motion for an order to show cause and attorney’s fees.
The City of Mesquite and its attorneys were held in contempt for violating a court order.
The Court denied the defendant’s motions for reconsideration regarding previous orders.
Findings of Fact
The Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees met the criteria established in Brunzell v. Golden Gate National Bank.
The City of Mesquite failed to respond to the Plaintiff’s motion within the allotted time.
The City violated a clear court order by holding a prohibited agenda item.
Conclusions of Law
The City of Mesquite, as a law enforcement agency, is required to comply with Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 289 regarding investigations of peace officers.
The Court found that the City acted in bad faith by fabricating criminal allegations against the Plaintiff.
The City was fined $500 for contempt and ordered to pay the Plaintiff’s legal fees.
2005 Interim Mesquite City Attorney.
Also, on June 3, the Mesquite City Council unanimously appointed Adam Anderson from Barney McKenna & Olmstead as the interim attorney for the City of Mesquite.
This is not the end.
To quote Churchill, “It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”
Meanwhile, Judge Williams outlined the costly schedule for the continuation of the Joseph and Shayla Chesley defamation case (A-23-877738-B) against the City of Mesquite, Baker, Sweetin, Davison Van Cleve PC, and other unnamed individuals.
Chesley litigation motions to September 2026.
The schedule, which concludes with a Jury trial on September 8, 2026, includes a litany of Plaintiff motions essentially designed to compel the City of Mesquite and the insurance company’s defense attorneys to produce documents that will aid in presenting the case to a jury.
It is common for a defense to use such delaying strategies to prepare for trial, gather evidence, or explore potential weaknesses in the prosecution’s case.
However, Judge Williams, in reviewing the delays from October 21, 2021, when Chesley, through his attorney Phillip Trenchak, filed the lawsuit, to May 27, 2025, when he told the defense that he expected “better from a municipality, the City of Mesquite, “I would have expected better from a municipality, the City of Mesquite. “I have not seen anything like this coming from the city government. I find that shocking.”
Potential plaintiff attorney fee awards (estimated in 2024 at more than $100,000) would mitigate the fiscal impact on the Chesleys.
However, the defense strategy of delay, while enriching defense attorneys, may place a potential long-term burden on the Mesquite taxpayer.
It was former Mayor Al Litman who urged Mayor Whipple, Council members Gallo, Fielding, Wanlass, and Parrish, “Don’t go down the same rat hole as your two employees [Dickie and Branum} have done, and reminding them that, “anyone commits no crime until formal charges have been brought up, and they have not. If the Chief committed a felony, why has he not been arrested, arraigned, and tried? The reason why? There was no crime.”
While the damage to Joseph MaQuade Chesley’s career and his wife’s health is virtually irreversible, it remains for Mayor Whipple, Council members Gallo, Fielding, Wanlass, and Parrish to heed Litman’s advice, accept the consequences of the City’s failures, and end the charade now rather than later.
Endnotes
[1] The City of Mesquite attempted to minimize the City’s involvement by explaining that the statements were not made in Mr. Sweetin’s official capacity as the former City Attorney. Therefore, they argue, the City Attorney cannot make a criminal allegation against another City Official, as just another ordinary civilian citizen.
[2] The MPOA is a separate organization apart from the Mesquite Police Department and not under the authority of the Police Chief.
[3] On May 13, 2021, the Mesquite Citizens’ Journal ceased operations.
[4] The anti-SLAPP statute aims to prevent lawsuits that would censor, intimidate, or silence critics by unnecessarily burdening them with the high cost of legal defense.
[5] “Without prejudice” means that a statement, communication, or action is made without affecting or waiving a legal right or claim.
[6] “With prejudice” means that a case is dismissed permanently and cannot be refiled.
[7] Councilman Boger had left the Council on March 3 for personal reasons.
[i] Joseph Maquade Chesley, Shayla Mae Chesley vs. City of Mesquite, Aaron Baker, Robert Sweetin, Davison Van ClevePC, Doe Individuals 1 through 300; and Rose Business or Governmental Entities 1 through 300, Case No. A-23-877738B, filed 9/13/2023 Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada.
On Thursday, the State Senate passed Assembly Joint Resolution 9 (AJR9). The summary of the resolution, which had been passed by the Assembly last month, reads as follows:
“Urges Congress to enact legislation to prohibit officers and agents of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the United States Department of Homeland Security from entering schools and places of worship for the purposes of enforcing federal immigration laws. (BDR R-779)”
The resolution was passed mostly along party lines but with one Senator, Lori Rogich, R-Las Vegas, joining the “aye” votes. Joint resolutions do not require the governor’s signature, so the resolution instructed the Chief Clerk of the Assembly to prepare and transmit a copy of this resolution to the Vice President of the United States as the presiding officer of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives and each member of the Nevada Congressional Delegation.
“By passing this resolution, Nevada is sending a clear message to Congress and the country that we don’t want families in our community to be afraid to practice their faith or take their kids to school, period,” Athar Haseebullah, Executive Director of the Nevada ACLU, said in a statement. He added that he appreciated Assembly members Erica Mosca, D-Las Vegas, and Cecelia González, D-Las Vegas, pushing for the resolution’s passage.
The resolution reads, in part, “The activities of federal immigration law enforcement agencies, on or around schools and places of worship, including, without limitation, surveillance, interviews, demands for information, arrests, detention or any other federal immigration enforcement activities, harmfully disrupt the learning and religious environments of schools and places of worship and significantly interfere with the ability of students and persons who attend religious services, regardless of their immigration status, to access free public education and places of worship…”
Nevada is the first state to send such a message to Congress, the state’s American Civil Liberties Union affiliate said.
GOP Bill Squeezes Working and Poor Americans to Fund Billionaire Tax Cuts
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Steven Horsford (NV-04) today voted against the Republican budget reconciliation bill that cuts deeply from programs working Americans rely on in order to fund tax giveaways to the billionaires and corporations. The bill, which adds nearly $4 trillion to the national debt, passed by a narrow party line margin. It now goes to the U.S. Senate where Republicans have already expressed opposition.
“The way Congressional Republicans conduct business in the dead of night matches the way they approach policy that harms their own constituents – it’s absolutely asinine,” Rep. Horsford said. “Nevadans deserve a government that prioritizes public health, food security, community safety, education and a dignified retirement for all who earn it. Instead, Republicans just stiffed the Silver State, and every state, with a bill to pay off their billionaire campaign donors and corporate backers.”
Nevada will be hit particularly hard if the Republican bill becomes law. Medicaid cuts alone could impact 811,000 residents in the Silver State, which will have to either add $6.7 billion to the state budget, or kick hundreds of thousands of people off their coverage.
In Nevada’s 4th Congressional District alone, 241,668 people receive medical coverage through Medicaid. The latest estimates are that more than 21,000 of them will lose coverage, along with more than 5,000 who will lose the coverage they now have from the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Horsford offered an amendment to extend a tax credit to lower ACA healthcare premiums across America, including nearly 100,000 Nevadans. House Republicans rejected the amendment on a party-line vote.
Additionally, SNAP food assistance cuts could impact 109,000 Nevadans, including 33,000 people in the 4th Congressional District.
The bill adds nearly $4 trillion to the national debt to help pay for tax cuts to the ultra-wealthy: 60 percent of the tax benefits will go to the top 20 percent of households. Meanwhile, due to Trump’s blanket tariffs, households will lose $2,800.
“The cruelty of this bill is spelled out in staggering numbers, but it isn’t law yet,” Rep. Horsford continued. “The power in American democracy has always been with the people, and now more than ever, lawmakers need a reminder of who they work for.”
When the bill came up for consideration in the Ways and Means Committee that Horsford serves on, he led committee Democrats in submitting amendments that would benefit working class Americans. During the nearly 18-hour meeting that lasted through the night on May 13, 2025, Republicans voted down every single one of the 38 amendments offered.
Horsford continued his opposition in the House Rules Committee, testifying during a middle-of-the-night hearing about the bill’s failure to address key issues affecting Nevadans, including housing and veterans support.
Editorial Note – The proposed amendment by Rep Mark Amodei of Nevada to sell 500,000 acres of public lands in Utah and Nevada was removed from the bill before passage at the behest of Rep Ryan Zinke of Montana. This proposed land sale was impactful to the Virgin and Moapa Valleys and opposed by the Nevada Democratic Congressional delegation.
AB73 This bill relates to campaign practices, requiring certain communications relating to an election that includes synthetic media (AI) must be disclosed. The bill was amended and passed as amended in the Assembly.
AB79 This bill relates to campaign finance. The bill prohibits a committee for political action from spending campaign contributions for personal use, including an elected public officer. On 4/22, the bill was amended and passed on the 3rd reading with 28 yeas and 14 nays. The bill moved to the Senate. On 5/13, it was heard in the Senate with no action. That means, the bill will still move forward.
AB81 Daylight Saving to change to Standard time bill was heard in the Senate on 5/13, no action was taken. This bill didn’t get a second hearing so now it has Failed.
AB123 This bill relates to election communications, prohibiting a person during any speech or other communication made in the course of his or her political campaign from making threatening statements to end one’s life. Did get the required Second hearing. The bill will be moving forward.
AB148 This bill relates to election deadline for a county or city clerk to distribute.
sample ballots. Final passage from the Assembly unanimously. On 5/15 the bill was heard in the Senate work session.
AB176 This bill prohibits any government entity from substantially burdening certain activity relating to reproductive health. This bill did get the second reading, so it will move forward.
AB197 This bill relates to government administration requiring governmental entities to keep certain personal information of people in non profit organizations. On 4/22, the bill passed, with 41 yeas and 1nay1. On 5/7, the Senate took no action. The bill moves forward.
AB235 This bill relates to health care providers that practice in reproductive health care or volunteer for a healthcare facility that provides services for reproductive health any provider of gender affirming care and the spouse, domestic partner or minor child’s personal records kept by the state to be kept confidential. This bill did get the second hearing and is now in the Senate.
AB343 This bill relates to hospital pricing of certain services.. This bill was heard on 5/15, which met the deadline. The bill was amended and referred to the Ways and Means committee.
AB346 End of Life. This bill did not get the required second hearing so it has Failed
Senate
SB74 This bill is a redo of many processes that need updating or cleaning up that hasn’t been done in years. The last action on this bill was on 4/21, the bill was amended and passed out of the work session. Now in the Assembly.
SB100 Establishes provisions governing the performance of certain election duties in a timely manner and penalties. On 5/13, the Assembly heard the bill and amended it. On the third reading, the Senate passed the bill. Yeas 14 nays 7.
SB102 This bill prohibits a person from, with intent to defraud, knowingly creating, filing, or otherwise submitting certain documents relating to elections and prohibiting a person from creating or serving in a false slate of presidential electors or conspiring to create or to serve in a false slate of presidential electors. This bill passed the Assembly in a work session. On 5/15, the bill passed the Senate 13 yeas and 8 nays.
SB217 IVF bill was amended and placed on the second reading where it was amended then moved to the Finance Committee.
SB352 Prohibits health insurers and providers from engaging in discriminatory actions. The bill passed the Assembly Yeas 16and 4 nays. It is Now in the Senate.
ARJ 1 Proposes to amend the State Constitution to revise provisions relating to the assessment and taxation of real property which is sold or transferred. In a Senate hearing on 5/16 in a work session it was passed out without recommendations. That means legislators approved it moving forward in the process but didn’t necessarily support it.
The above listed bills are the bills that I will follow until the end of the session, so more updates will be coming. The session is almost done; June 2 is a hard stop. I do anticipate a special session because of the budget, which is my opinion only.
Below are some bills that I have gotten information on from other news organizations including Native Voters Alliance, Review Journal, Nevada Independent, Nevada Current and immediate press releases.
(1) For Immediate Release
May 13, 2025
Horsford Bill Passes Divided U.S. House with Bipartisan Support.
Legislation Will Expand Local Control, Diversify Economy & Increase Economic Growth in North Las Vegas.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Steven Horsford (NV-04) released the following statement today as the U.S. House of Representatives passed his Apex Area Technical Corrections Act by a unanimous vote.
Rep. Horsford authored the legislation to allow Clark County to acquire certain federal land (referred to as the Apex Site) for industries that generate hazardous by-products.
“I’m thrilled to see this divided Congress finding common cause to support my constituents in North Las Vegas,” Rep. Horsford said. “This vote is a resounding affirmation for our community to have the autonomy it needs to make critical investments without facing unnecessary hurdles from Washington. Allowing for local control of the Apex Site will mean more local jobs, more industries to work in, and more economic growth for our community.”
Today’s vote is a reflection of Rep. Horsford’s ability to work with lawmakers from both sides of the aisle to advance priorities for Nevada’s 4th Congressional District.
Under Rep. Horsford’s legislation, the City of North Las Vegas would no longer need approval from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to further develop existing electric power, water, natural gas, telephone, railroad, and highway facilities on the Apex Site.
(2) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 14th, 2025
Speaker Steve Yeager to present AB398 with a Conceptual Amendment Addressing Charter School Teacher Pay Raises
Carson City, NV –On Thursday, May 15th Speaker Steve Yeager will present AB398 which provides additional compensation for hard to fill positions for Title 1 schools and special education teachers with a conceptual amendment addressing Charter School teacher pay raises.
Hearing Details:
Date: Thursday, May 15th 2025
Time: 8:00AM PST
Location: Assembly Ways and Means Committee – Nevada Legislature
Last week during the education budget closings, Speaker Yeager committed on the record to work on legislation to provide funding for charter school teacher pay raises. The amendment will mirror the language of SB231 from the 2023 session, which allocated funding for teacher and education support professional raises, but also required transparency and accountability. The SB231 money from the last session resulted in teacher pay raises of approximately 20% across all 17 school school districts.
This bill was heard in the Assembly May 15.
(3) Competing plans test priorities for Nevada Schools
A Democrat-backed education proposal that maintains educator pay raises and tightens hiring processes for key school administrators will have its initial hearing Monday at the Nevada Legislature.
The wide-ranging Senate Bill 460, or the Education through Accountability, Transparency and Efficiency Act, is a 104-page piece of legislation sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro, D-Las Vegas. The comprehensive measure also opens the possibility of school board takeovers and gives school districts the ability to object to charter school placements.
It requests $317 million in appropriations for its various proposals, with $250 million of that being to extend the raises lawmakers first passed in 2023.
“I believe wholeheartedly in the promise of public education, and that’s why I’m excited to introduce this bill. These reforms can improve outcomes for students, help us hire and retain great teachers and staff, and give parents more confidence in our educational system,” Cannizzaro said in a statement accompanying the bill filing last month. “We all agree that our kids deserve the best possible educational opportunities.
That means investing in classrooms while ensuring publicly funded schools are more transparent and accountable to deliver for students, parents and our community.”
The bill is heavy on school governance accountability and attracting and retaining staff.
On accountability, SB 460 introduces the concept of a School District Oversight Board, chaired by the governor, which can take over for a local school board if the board fails to follow “any state law.” The oversight board can exert power for up to 90 days at a time if the local board also does not provide a satisfactory corrective plan to the state.
SB 460 requires the state Board of Education to prepare a plan to improve achievement in English language arts, math and science in elementary schools.
Administrators who don’t reach goals for three consecutive years may receive school district support, and the school board will assess the principals’ performance – and potentially remove the principal or require them to reapply for their job.
On charter oversight, a provision of SB 460 allows school boards to object to the formation of a proposed charter school within its boundaries if the board determines that the charter’s academic, financial or organizational plans “do not meet the needs of the community.”
The State Public Charter School Authority would rule on the objections. Additionally, the bill adds school district representation to the authority — a school board member, a superintendent and a financial administrator.
And on private school oversight, the bill proposes requiring preschools with students who receive state-funded Opportunity Scholarships to complete demographic and enrollment reports on scholarship recipients, and ensure that recipients take the standardized exams given to public school students and report the results to the state.
The bill also gives the Clark County School District board members appointed by municipal governments voting powers.
Giving appointees the vote is being considered in a separate bill as well.
On staffing, the bill notably allocates $250 million to school districts to extend the teacher and support staff pay raises, matched with district funds and separately affirmed by lawmakers, as legislators granted in 2023.
For CCSD specifically, the bill requires the district and its teacher and administrator unions to negotiate a salary incentive program for teachers and principals who complete professional development or continuing education.
And on high-level hiring, SB 460 lays out minimum education and experience requirements for superintendent and chief financial officer applicants. Superintendent and CFO candidates for districts in the largest counties would need to be approved by the Nevada Department of Education before being hired. The Nevada Department of Education would also be able to fire superintendents, and appoint an interim leader, if at least 30% of their district’s schools are not demonstrating academic growth.
Cannizzaro and Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo have dueling omnibus bills before the 2025 Legislature to reform Nevada’s K-12 education system. Lombardo’s Assembly Bill 584, which was introduced Wednesday, contains items in common with Cannizzaro’s bill such as school board and principal accountability. The governor’s bill, however, is friendlier to charter schools and other school choice options. No hearing has been scheduled yet for AB 584.
Lombardo has indicated that charter schools were his line in the sand. When the Democrat-majority appropriations committees voted this month for a state education budget that only set aside money for the proposed educator raises to employees of school districts, Lombardo said he would reject the budget if it came to him without consideration for charter educators.
Charter schools are also public schools, with state oversight and funding but more flexibility and independence than traditional school districts.
“I’ve been clear and consistent on this. I will not sign an education budget that does not include equal pay for public charter school teachers and make teacher pay raises, including those for charter school teachers, permanent,” he responded in a statement.
“Further, I will veto any education budget bill that falls short of addressing a serious need for accountability, transparency and real parental choice. All 63 legislators have been aware of my position for months, and it is my expectation that they will pass a bill that improves education for all Nevada children.”
The message is apparently coming through — although it hasn’t been confirmed with any votes, a separate bill on pay for teachers in “hard-to-fill” positions from Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager, D-Las Vegas, now includes an amendment to set aside nearly $20 million for charter staff raises.
(4) On the National Front
Horsford Fights GOP Budget for Over 17 Hours
Lawmaker Offers Amendment After Amendment Highlighting Dangers of Planned Cuts
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Steven Horsford (NV-04), the Silver State’s sole lawmaker serving on the House Ways and Means Committee with jurisdiction over healthcare and taxes, today voted to protect his constituents – and all Nevadans – from a dangerous budget proposal that cuts deeply from programs working Americans rely on to fund tax giveaways to the billionaires.
While Horsford and every Ways and Means Democrat voted against moving the budget proposal out of committee, the proposal passed and now goes to the Congressional Budget Committee, where it will be combined with budget proposals from ten other committees before a vote by the full House.
Horsford offered five amendments during the marathon markup session that lasted seventeen-and-a-half hours:
Advanced Premium Tax Credit (APTC): A provision to make permanent the Advanced Premium Tax Credit. First introduced in the Affordable Care Act, expanded by the American Rescue Act, and extended through the end of 2025 by the Inflation Reduction Act, the APTC is a federal premium tax credit which has helped nearly 20 million Americans gain access to affordable health care coverage through the ACA marketplaces.
Veterans Housing Fund: A one percent surtax on the largest corporations to provide essential mental health services and housing opportunities for at-risk veterans.
Restoring Employment for Veterans: An amendment to ensure veterans who were recently laid off because of DOGE-led cuts to the federal workforce are included in the Workers Opportunity Tax Credit.
Tax Relief for New Businesses: An amendment to increase the startup tax deduction from $5,000 to $50,000 to help new businesses get off the ground and drive economic activity across the country.
Credit for Domestic Travel: With international travel down 20 percent since January, and consumer confidence at a 50-year low, this tax credit would incentivize domestic travel to support local economies that rely on tourism.
Each amendment was defeated by party line votes. Rep. Horsford released the following statement:
“The only reason to ram a bill through committee in the dead of night is to hide its impact from Nevadans and people across the country,” Rep. Horsford said. “This budget is a butcher’s block for the programs and benefits working Americans depend on, and a giveaway for the wealthiest among us. Nevadans are right to be wary of a plan that cuts Medicaid, Social Security, SNAP, education funding and much more, but this plan is still a long way from becoming law. I fought for more than seventeen hours today, and I’m just getting started.”
Nevada will be hit particularly hard if the Republican budget becomes law. Medicaid cuts alone could impact 811,000 residents in the Silver State, which will have to either add $6.7 billion to the state budget, or kick hundreds of thousands of people off their coverage, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, if the APTC is not made permanent, residents in Nevada’s 4th Congressional District could see an average premium increase between 150-200 percent. A 40-year-old making $31,000 per year would experience a $95 increase, from $58 to $153. And a 60-year-old couple making $82,000 per year would experience a $1,045 increase, from $581 to $1,626.
Key Budget Stats & Facts
$5 trillion: Cost of Republican tax plan, mostly benefiting the wealthy.
$1.8 trillion: Cost to extend 2017 law to 98% of Americans.
13.7 million: Estimated number of Americans losing coverage due to GOP health care cuts.
$278,000/year: Average annual gain for the top 0.1% under GOP plan.
$.75/day: Relief for families earning under $50K/year.
Trump’s Tariff Tax: Costing American households an average of $2,800/year in higher prices.
Americans for Tax Fairness has reported that Trump’s tariff tax has already cost American households $14 billion
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Steven Horsford (NV-04) released the following statement after news broke Sunday that former President Joe Biden was diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer.
“My thoughts are with President Biden and his entire family during this very difficult time,” Rep. Horsford said. “Through nearly 55 years of public service, the former President has shown every American what perseverance over adversity looks like. We know the grit that Joe Biden is made of, and we know he will fight this diagnosis with the grace he has brought to every challenge in his life.”
Beginning in 2016, then-Vice President Joe Biden spearheaded a Cancer Moonshot “to eliminate cancer as we know it”. The initiative, which came one year after the loss of Biden’s son Beau to brain cancer, brought together patients, advocates, researchers, and clinicians to address cancer with the resources available across government, academia, and the private sector. President Biden’s Cancer Moonshot is credited with expanding prevention drives, developing new technologies to characterize tumors and test treatments, and redoubling efforts to understand the leading causes of childhood cancers, and much more.
According to Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 533.025, all water sources in Nevada, above and below ground, are publicly owned. This principle underpins the State’s legal and ethical obligations to water management entities.
On April 24, 2025, Nevada Supreme Court Justice Lidia S. Stiglich, with Ron D. Parraguirre and Linda Marie Bell concurring, gave the Virgin Valley Water District Board (VVWDB) in Mesquite, Nevada, sole and absolute discretion to set the rental rate on irrigation water they delivered after January 1, 2020, and by default giving the same rate-setting authority to SNWA authorities to divert the Water to Lake Mead.
Public Ownership of Water in Nevada
The disputed publicly owned water was initially appropriated under the 1927 Virgin River Decree to Mesquite Irrigation Company (MIC) and Bunkerville Irrigation Company (BIC) stockholders for local area irrigation.
A Dying Irrigation Market
However, by the early ’90s, a dying dairy and agriculture market required rebuilding the community economy into a retirement area and tourist and gaming mecca, thus shifting the water demand from highly polluted Decreed water for declining irrigation to somewhat cleaner groundwater for rising domestic requirements.
As golf courses, gaming, and homeowner associations replaced irrigated lands, much of the undiverted Water flowed freely downstream to Lake Mead.
Virgin Valley Water District as stock brokers
In 1993, the Nevada Legislature established the Virgin Valley Water District (VVWD), requiring it to deliver better-quality groundwater from Virgin River Basin 222 for Mesquite-Bunkerville’s domestic needs.
Nonetheless, once formed, Decreed Water stockholders took control of the Virgin Valley Water District Board. They began acquiring Water at a baseline price of $900.00 per share for one MIC stock.
They argued that such share purchases of stocks were necessary for a future time when they would tax the rate holders to pay for the cleaning of the Water essential for domestic use.[1]
Thus began the Water Board’s practice of joining the Irrigation Companies as a leasing agent, effectively making the Water Board a stockbroker.
Raising Rates
As stockholders continued to dominate the Board, they increased the share price to $5,524.90 for a BIC stock in 1996, rising to $8,287.00 in 1997 with a MIC stock at $6,000. By 2005, stockholders on the water board had gifted $31,500 for BIC stock and $22,806 for MIC, a stock share.
Also, in 2005, the Southern Nevada Water Association entered the Virgin River market and paid $11,686,500.00 for 350 BIC water stocks at $33,390.00 per share.
In 2008, the VVWDB raised BIC stock price to $86,000 per share while establishing $65,000 as the per-share value for MIC stock shares. [2]
Also, in 2008, under a federally authorized contracting program, the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) began using its public funds to pay Virgin River stockholders for unused irrigation water, arguably increasing the amount of Water flowing into Lake Mead.
In 2009, SNWA authorities purchased 1 BIC stock share at $80,056.23 and partially purchased 5 BIC shares for $400,281.15, amounting to $80,056.23 per share.
By 2010, the SNWA had moved to replace the VVWDB as a rate-setting stock broker by purchasing and leasing MIC and BIC stock shares to, on paper, show them reallocated from irrigation diversions in the Mesquite-Bunkerville areas as authorized under the 1927 Virgin River decree to flow into Lake Mead, thus servicing the beneficial use of SNWA customers in the Las Vegas Metropolitan area.
VVWD ended its activities due to potential profits from the SNWA reallocating program. By then, the VVWDB had spent $12,159,670.86 of ratepayer funds to acquire 549 stock shares they subleased (rented) (but did not deliver)[3] to local golf courses and occasionally to a local farm.
Legal dispute
In 2018, the owners of Paradise Canyon (DBA the Wolf Creek Golf Course) alleged that the members of the Virgin Valley Water District Board violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in raising their irrigation water rate from $250 to $1,115 per share an increase of 346%.
While the trial proceeded, on September 17, 2020, Nevada Supreme Court Justice Lidia S. Stiglich, who authored the Paradise Canyon Ruling, this time with Mark Gibbons, James William Hardesty, and Ellisa F. Cadish, ruled after oral arguments in the Walker Case, that the public trust doctrine does not permit reallocating water rights already adjudicated and settled under the doctrine of prior appropriation. Nonetheless, SNWA authorities continued applying VVWDB rate-setting standards to acquire and reallocate MIC and BIC stock shares to Lake Mead, a process arguably denied by Stiglich and other Justices in the Walker Case.
On June 5, 2023, the Jury concluded that when the owners of Paradise Canyon signed a contract with the VVWDB in June 2011, they had a justified expectation that the local market around the City of Mesquite on and after January 1, 2020, would exclude rates paid by The Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) upon which the Water District claimed they based its increased price to $1,200 per share. The Jury then set a fair rate of leased irrigation shares at $300 and awarded the owners of Paradise Canyon $811,000 in damages.
Then, on April 24, 2025, Nevada Supreme Court Justice Lidia S. Stiglich, with Ron D. Parraguirre and Linda Marie Bell concurring, gave the Virgin Valley Water District Board (VVWDB) in Mesquite, Nevada, sole and absolute discretion to set the rental rate on irrigation water they delivered after January 1, 2020, and by default giving the same rate-setting authority to SNWA authorities to divert the Water to Lake Mead.
Questions of ethics, public Trust, and fiduciary responsibilities
The Justice Stiglich, Parraguirre, and Bell rulings suggest gifting $12,159,670.86 in public funds to those holding stocks in MIC and BIC through rate setting, which set the terms for SNWA to gift another $56,423,220.73 in public funds to the stockholders of MIC and BIC for a total of 68,582,891.59 funds for publically owned but not longer used appropriated irrigation water complies with fiduciary ethical requirements, as governed by the Nevada Commission on Ethics.
Further, the Justices seem to feel that contrary to the Walker ruling, the WVWDB has sole and absolute discretion to set rates that ultimately allow for reallocating appropriated water rights away from the Decreed area to benefit the population of the Las Vegas Metropolitan area.
Future options
If approved by the Wolf Creek Golf course owners, the attorneys for Paradise Canyon have several options. First, they can appeal to the entire Supreme Court for a review of the three Justices’ ruling.
Since the three judges remanded the case to the lower court, it could result in a new trial.
In either case, the potential may exist to define the VVWDB rate-setting strategy as a violation of the covenant of good faith, leading directly to SNWA’s question of purchasing and leasing of Decreed water for reappropriation to Lake Mead an explicit public trust and fiduciary violation as stated by Stiglich, and the other Justices in the Walker Case.
[1] Current plans project cleaning the Decreed river water for domestic use in 2035, continuing to 2061, for $60 million in capital expenses. The effort remains highly speculative for several reasons, including costs and overappropriation of surface water primarily by the Southern Nevada Water Authority.
[2] The difference between BIC and MIC stock shares comes from an assumption that more water comes from BIC shares thn from MIC shares.
[3] The VVWDB does not deliver the water; they profit from leasing (renting) stock shares paid for with ratepayer funds. Local delivery of that source comes via traditional ditches and pipes constructed by the Irrigation Companies.
As I write this, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has just concluded the oral arguments in the birthright citizenship case. The case they are deciding, however, is not about the constitutionality of birthright citizenship but rather whether or not local and regional judges have the authority to issue injunctions that apply nationwide. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, speaking for the Department of Justice (DOJ), argued that they do not. But New Jersey’s Solicitor General, Jeremy Feigenbaum, and attorney Kelsi Corkran, Supreme Court director at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law School, both argued that they do.
Buried in the questions and answers between SCOTUS and the Solicitor General is a small aside that I believe is likely to be the most significant issue in the case. It clearly shows what Trump and the DOJ intend to do in the future:
“Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked the solicitor general if, based on the government’s arguments that nationwide injunctions encroach on executive branch powers, the Supreme Court would have the authority to issue a nationwide injunction.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer said the government’s stance is that the Supreme Court would not have the power to issue such an injunction.” (1)
The Solicitor General’s response is very telling. It says that the Trump administration does not consider the Court as “supreme” in any sense of the word. The implication is that only the Executive Branch has the authority to act on the nation as a whole.
This would, of course, completely negate any Judicial Branch “checks and balances” on the Executive Branch. It would leave Trump free to become the dictator that he wants to be by simply declaring that any actions he takes apply “nationwide.” SCOTUS would be powerless; unable to rule against him.
Trump has always sought to achieve total unconstrained power. The Republican-led House and Senate have shown that they’re more than willing to be mere rubber stamps for Trump (echoing the political structures in other dictatorial countries like North Korea, Russia, and China). The GOP’s cowardice effectively removes all Congressional “checks and balances” on the Executive Branch as well, so much so that it becomes a news headline if a Republican in Congress actually speaks out in opposition to a Trump policy.
I seem to recall an old saying: “death by a thousand cuts.” That is what the United States of America is being subjected to right now. Each individual cut may seem trivial in the context of so many happening at once, but, taken together, they may well cause the death of our Republic.
NV Dems Slam Mark Amodei For Pushing House Republicans To Sell Pieces of Nevada to Fund Tax Breaks For Billionaires
This is a press release issued on May 8, 2025 by the Nevada Democratic Party.
Nevada Democrats slammed Mark Amodei after he pushed House Republicans to change federal law that ensures that proceeds from federal land sales in Southern Nevada stay in Nevada. As another part of his scheme to cut taxes for billionaires by screwing over working Nevadans, in the dead of the night, Amodei sold out working families and voted to take even more money out of Nevada’s pocket.
Senator Catherine Cortez Masto and Congresswoman Susie Lee introduced the Southern Nevada Economic Development and Conservation Act — a balanced lands solution, meticulously negotiated with and supported by Nevadan local stakeholders, that would enable Clark County to pursue new development responsibly while safeguarding our most precious public lands for conservation and recreation – all while ensuring that proceeds from land sales in Nevada stay in Nevada.
Nevada’s vast public lands, long a flashpoint in state-federal tensions, could be used to generate federal revenue under an amendment to the GOP’s comprehensive spending package.
The provision put forward by Republican Reps. Mark Amodei of Nevada and Celeste Maloy of Utah would allow the sale of thousands of acres of public lands in the two states. The plan is raising concerns with advocates and Democrats who worry it will disrupt tribal lands, historic monuments and local projects funded through state land purchases.
The amendment would affect Clark, Washoe, Lyon, and Pershing counties.
His congressional colleagues don’t agree that it’s a “Nevada-centric” pitch. The worry from Nevada Democrats isn’t new; its three House representatives and two senators have been rallying against the budget reconciliation efforts since February for its potential cuts to Medicaid. Now, Amodei’s 33-page amendment builds on those preexisting woes, with the members of Congress’ minority party warning it would disturb the status-quo of land sale money going directly towards Nevada.
“For decades, federal law has ensured that proceeds from land sales in southern Nevada stay in Nevada,” said Rep. Susie Lee, D-Nev, in a statement. “Last night’s traitorous maneuver instead would send Nevada’s land proceeds to Washington to pay for tax cuts for billionaires.
Lee’s mention of the decades-old practice is about the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act, which enables a bargaining process with the Bureau of Land Management and use of that revenue to fund some conservation projects. Use of the act and other land-release initiatives are generally bipartisan issues — with Gov. Joe Lombardo, a Republican, working to release some of over 80% of federally-owned land for the purpose of building affordable housing.
Amodei’s amendment progressed with a 24-19 vote, with Colorado’s Jeff Hurd as the only Republican to join the Democrats in opposition. The measure now faces a full House vote.
Amodei’s office shared maps of federal lands in areas this measure could impact, including one with public land surrounding the Pyramid Lake Paiute Reservation in northwestern Nevada. For the Native Voters Alliance of Nevada, a nonprofit advancing Native American political interests, Amodei’s amendment would complicate already-difficult land recovery efforts for the tribe.
“You don’t accidentally mark land for disposal right next to a sovereign nation,” said the organization communications’ associate Jonnette Paddy. “You do that when they’re politically convenient to ignore.”
When Rep. Joe Neguse, D-Colo., asked if any of the House members from Clark County — Lee and fellow Democratic Nevada Reps. Dina Titus and Steven Horsford — had been consulted for the legislation, Amodei said no.
“To basically say to them that they have no say as to what happens with respect to land conveyances in their congressional districts,” Neguse said to Amodei. “I think it is a slippery slope.”
Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., who also condemned the amendment and Amodei’s lack of consultation, said the proposal overrides the agreements from her previous bills, including her Pershing County Economic Development and Conservation Act.
The legislation supports the Lovelock Paiute Tribe’s expansion of their Tribal cemetery alongside other protections for management of public lands and ensuring the revenue from land sales stay in Pershing County.
It hasn’t been heard during this session of Congress, though it’s garnered support from local leaders like Chairman of the Pershing County Commission Joe Crim Jr.
“I am outraged that Congressman Amodei sold out Nevadans in the dead of night by passing a flawed, hastily-drafted proposal,” Rosen said in a statement. “…. I will not support a Washington-drafted proposal that will lead to Nevada losing out on millions of dollars in funding for our local priorities like education and restoration around the Truckee River.”
While there wasn’t consultation with the Southern Nevada representatives, Amodei said he had been urged to put the amendment forward by the Clark County Commission “on their behalf as a member of the majority in the House.” Clark County said in a statement that it did not support the proposal.
