The Corporate Takeover of Justice: How Nevada's Resort Industry Seeks to Create a Two-Tiered Legal System

Introduction: The Resurgence of a Controversial Proposal

In a move that threatens to fundamentally undermine constitutional protections and equal justice under law, the Nevada Resort Association has mounted a vigorous defense of provisions within Governor Joe Lombardo’s crime bill that would establish so-called “order-out corridors.” These provisions, embedded within Assembly Bill 4, would grant courts the authority to ban individuals convicted of certain offenses from the Las Vegas resort corridor for periods up to one year. While framed as public safety measures, these proposals resurrect the ghost of the disbanded Resort Corridor Court—a specialized judicial entity that raised serious constitutional questions before its dissolution.

The current legislative push represents more than mere policy adjustment; it constitutes a fundamental challenge to core American principles of justice, equality, and constitutional rights. The gaming industry’s aggressive lobbying for these measures reveals a troubling willingness to sacrifice individual liberties for corporate interests, creating what critics rightly characterize as a privatized justice system serving tourism dollars rather than justice.

Historical Context: The Rise and Fall of the Resort Corridor Court

The controversy surrounding AB4 cannot be understood without examining the brief but troubling history of the Resort Corridor Court. Established in 2023 by the Clark County Justice Court, this specialized court was designed specifically to handle low-level offenses occurring within the tourist district of the Las Vegas Strip. Its most controversial feature was the authority to ban offenders from the resort corridor for months at a time—a practice critics immediately identified as constitutionally problematic.

The court’s existence was short-lived, disbanded in 2024 after serious questions emerged about its legality. However, the Nevada Resort Association now claims these concerns have been resolved following an April ruling by a Clark County District Court Judge. This ruling affirmed the county’s authority to enact criminal ordinances specific to the resort corridor and determined that banning individuals from the area after criminal charges or convictions did not violate First Amendment protections.

The Current Legislative Landscape

Assembly Bill 4 represents a sweeping reform of Nevada’s criminal law, covering multiple areas beyond the resort corridor provisions. The bill expands definitions of stalking to include dating relationships and cyberstalking via social media, adds kidnapping and attempted domestic violence to felony domestic violence offenses, mandates faster firearm surrender compliance, increases penalties for DUI offenses, and addresses violence against school employees, among other provisions.

However, the resort corridor elements have attracted the most controversy. Matt Griffin, a lobbyist for the Nevada Resort Association, has attempted to distance the current proposal from the previous corridor court, telling lawmakers that “there’s been some misunderstanding about what’s being proposed today.” Griffin emphasized that the bill does not directly reestablish the corridor court but rather gives the Justice Court authority to do so at its discretion.

The proposed legislation would establish mandatory one-year bans from designated corridors for repeat offenses committed within two years, with discretionary penalties for first offenses. Virginia Valentine, president and CEO of the Nevada Resort Association, justified these measures by citing recidivism concerns, stating that “recidivism continues to be a significant issue in our tourism areas.”

Constitutional Concerns and Civil Liberties Implications

The Slippery Slope of Banishment Proceedings

The most alarming aspect of these proposals is their creation of what amounts to modern-day banishment practices. While proponents frame these measures as targeted public safety tools, history demonstrates that such powers are rarely applied equitably. As Athar Haseebullah, executive director of the ACLU of Nevada, correctly identified, the previous corridor court “targeted people, largely who are unhoused and street performers. It targeted very few, if any, folks who engaged in violence.”

This selective application reveals the true purpose behind these measures: not public safety, but the creation of tourist-friendly zones where visible poverty and inconvenience are criminalized. When we establish separate justice systems for different geographic areas, we undermine the foundational principle that all citizens stand equal before the law regardless of where they are or what they look like.

First Amendment Implications

The free speech implications of these corridor bans cannot be overstated. Street performers and vendors—individuals engaging in constitutionally protected expression and commerce—were specifically targeted by the previous corridor court. While the April court ruling found no First Amendment violation in banning individuals after criminal charges or convictions, this interpretation dangerously narrows protected speech rights. The ability to access public spaces for lawful expression is fundamental to a functioning democracy, and creating “expression-free zones” for corporate comfort sets a dangerous precedent.

The Corporate Capture of Justice

Privatizing Public Space and Public Justice

Haseebullah’s characterization of this legislation as selling “out the interests of our community for what the resorts want” strikes at the heart of the matter. When powerful corporate interests can shape judicial procedures to serve their commercial needs, we have crossed a dangerous threshold. The participation of major gaming companies—including Red Rock Resorts, Caesars Entertainment, Boyd Gaming Corporation, MGM Resorts International, and Wynn Resorts—in supporting this legislation demonstrates the alarming influence of corporate power over democratic processes.

This corporate capture of justice represents a fundamental threat to democratic governance. When the justice system begins serving commercial interests rather than justice itself, we have abandoned the social contract that underpins our republic. The fact that these measures target the most vulnerable populations while ignoring violent offenders reveals their true purpose: not safety, but aesthetic control.

The Illusion of Data-Driven Policy

The Nevada Resort Association’s proposed amendment requiring annual reports on corridor bans represents a superficial attempt to appear transparent while obscuring the fundamental injustice of the proposal. The absence of public data from the previous court’s operation speaks volumes about the lack of accountability in these specialized judicial systems. True transparency would require demonstrating that these measures actually improve public safety rather than merely moving “undesirable” populations out of tourist view.

The Broader Implications for Democratic Principles

Equal Protection Under Threat

The Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause exists precisely to prevent the creation of separate legal standards for different groups of citizens. By establishing special judicial procedures for specific geographic areas dominated by corporate interests, Nevada’s proposal threatens this fundamental constitutional guarantee. When we allow economic power to determine judicial outcomes, we abandon the principle that justice should be blind to wealth and status.

The Dangerous Precedent of Geographic Justice

Creating separate justice systems for different areas of a state establishes a precedent that could have far-reaching consequences. If resort corridors can have special courts and procedures, what prevents other powerful interests from demanding similar arrangements? Would wealthy residential communities be next to request special judicial treatment? The fragmentation of justice along geographic and economic lines represents a fundamental threat to the unity and integrity of our legal system.

A Path Forward: Principles Over Profit

Rejecting the Corporate Justice Model

Rather than creating separate judicial systems for corporate convenience, Nevada should focus on evidence-based approaches that address root causes of crime while respecting constitutional rights. Investments in social services, mental health resources, and economic opportunities would do more to enhance public safety than banishing vulnerable populations from tourist areas.

The provisions elevating crimes against hospitality workers to higher felony categories—while potentially well-intentioned—should be evaluated based on evidence rather than corporate lobbying. All workers deserve protection, but creating protected classes based on industry affiliation risks further fragmenting our justice system along economic lines.

Strengthening Constitutional Protections

Instead of seeking ways to circumvent constitutional protections, lawmakers should focus on strengthening them. The proposed measures addressing domestic violence, stalking, and firearm surrender represent legitimate public safety concerns that deserve thoughtful consideration separate from the controversial corridor provisions. By decoupling these important reforms from the corporate-friendly corridor bans, Nevada could advance genuine public safety without sacrificing constitutional principles.

Conclusion: Justice Must Remain Blind

The fundamental promise of American justice is that it applies equally to all citizens, regardless of wealth, status, or location. The resort corridor provisions in AB4 represent a dangerous departure from this principle, creating a system where corporate interests can effectively purchase special judicial procedures that target the most vulnerable among us.

As citizens committed to democratic values and constitutional principles, we must reject any attempt to create a two-tiered justice system. The right to equal protection under the law, to freedom of movement, and to access public spaces for lawful expression are not privileges to be negotiated away for corporate profit. They are fundamental rights that form the bedrock of our democracy.

The Nevada legislature has an opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to these principles by rejecting the resort corridor provisions while advancing the legitimate public safety measures contained in AB4. The future of justice in Nevada—and potentially beyond—depends on whether our elected officials choose principle over profit, equality over exclusion, and constitutional rights over corporate convenience.