Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan:The U.S. Supreme Court Weighs in on State Regulation of Local Ethics Practices

Abstract

Accusations of a local official's conflict of interest have given rise to the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan. Michael Carrigan was a city council member for Sparks, Nevada. Carrigan's friend and campaign manager, Carlos Vasquez, worked as a consultant for a local land development company, and stood to reap financial benefits from the proposed construction of a casino. Before voting, Carrigan met with the Sparks city attorney to discuss the Nevada Ethics in Government Law, and, acting according to the attorney' recommendation, Carrigan publicly disclosed his relationship with the consultant and voted in favor of the casino's construction. Some citizens of Sparks viewed Carrigan's participation and vote in the legislative session as improper and filed complaints with the state ethics commission. After investigation, the Nevada Commission on Ethics censured Carrigan for failing to recuse himself but found he had not purposely violated the statute. So where did the system break down? If there was a violation of Nevada's ethics rules, does the fault lie with a baffled council member? A misguided city attorney? Or an incomprehensible statute?