Nevada Poised to Revive Controversial Court That Banned Offenders from the Las Vegas Strip

Nevada lawmaker push aims to bring back the Resort Corridor Court

Two years ago, Nevada judges created an unusual court that sentenced people convicted of low-level crimes on the Las Vegas Strip — including petty theft, assault, drug offenses and loitering — by barring them from the state’s primary tourist corridor for one year. The program was praised by casino and resort owners but faced legal challenges and was dissolved about a year and a half after it began.

Proposal resurfaces amid tourism decline

With tourism showing signs of softening, lawmakers in a special session that opened Thursday are considering an amendment to Gov. Joe Lombardo’s broader crime bill to restore the so-called Resort Corridor Court. Supporters — including major casino companies and Culinary Union Local 226 — say the court helps protect hospitality workers and visitors and preserves the Strip’s appeal to tourists.

“It’s important for the safety of our guests and for our employees in the workplace,” said Virginia Valentine, president of the Nevada Resort Association. “It’s also important for the whole guest experience.”

Lombardo’s package, dubbed the Safe Streets and Neighborhoods Act, would also raise penalties for repeat offenders and increase or sharpen penalties for offenses such as smash-and-grab robberies, possession of child pornography, assault and battery against hospitality employees, and DUI cases that cause death. It would also broaden stalking laws to explicitly include cyberstalking.

Supporters’ arguments: deterrence and worker safety

Ted Pappageorge, secretary-treasurer of Culinary Union Local 226, said the corridor bans act as a deterrent and make it safer for workers commuting to and from shifts and while on the job. He warned that perceptions of safety matter: if visitors do not feel secure, they may choose other destinations and jobs could be lost. The Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority reported an 11% drop in visitors between June 2024 and June 2025.

Critics: legality, fairness and impact on unhoused people

Opponents, led by the ACLU of Nevada and justice reform groups, argue the corridor bans unfairly targeted unhoused people and risked criminalizing public sidewalks adjacent to private resorts. Athar Haseebullah of the ACLU of Nevada warned that enforcement could effectively privatize public spaces: people who violated a ban could be arrested simply for walking on a public sidewalk outside a resort.

Nick Shepack of the Fines and Fees Justice Center said the policy created a "revolving door" for people experiencing homelessness, noting that many who were banned simply returned to areas where they sheltered, including storm-drain tunnels beneath and near the Strip. Clark County’s 2024 homelessness census counted nearly 8,000 people without stable housing.

Scale, oversight and open questions

The earlier court reportedly banned more than 4,100 people from the corridor, nearly all through the Resort Corridor Court, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Anyone who returned to the barred area faced possible jail time. Judges disbanded the court amid legal concerns, and public data on its operations has been limited.

The amendment under consideration would require the court to deliver an annual report detailing how many people were banned, the offenses that led to bans, and completion rates for sentences — a step supporters say will increase transparency. Critics say reporting alone won’t address constitutional questions or the underlying social problems contributing to low-level crimes.

Context: crime trends on the Strip

Police data show overall crime on the Strip has fallen year-over-year. As of November, violent crimes such as assault and homicide were down roughly 6% compared with the previous year, and trespassing — the most commonly reported offense this year — had declined by about 35%. Supporters argue that the corridor court helped sustain this improvement, while opponents say enforcement focused on vulnerable populations rather than root causes.

The debate pits business and labor concerns about safety and tourism against civil liberties and homelessness advocates who warn of disproportionate impact on unhoused and marginalized people. Lawmakers must now weigh those competing priorities as they consider whether to reinstate a court that treats offenses tied to a specific public corridor differently from other parts of the city.