Nevada committee hears bill to bar denying court entry over attire, allow parole employment pilot

Assemblyman Jovan Jackson and advocates told the Assembly Judiciary Committee on the morning of the hearing that Assembly Bill 320 (AB 320) would prevent courts from denying defendants entry to proceedings solely because of their clothing and would permit the Division of Parole and Probation to establish a pilot workforce program for people on parole or probation.

The bill’s sponsor, Assemblyman Jovan Jackson, stressed access to court for low-income Nevadans and said the legislation “focuses on fairness, rehabilitation, and reducing recidivism.” Jackson said his experience running a housing program showed people have been denied access to court over attire such as shorts or flip-flops. “These dress codes impact individuals from low income backgrounds who may lack the resources to afford formal attire,” Jackson said.

Supporters said the change would remove a barrier to due process and help reentry. Nick Shipack, Nevada state director of the Fines and Fees Justice Center, walked the committee through a conceptual amendment and described two main components that remain: (1) an economic-access provision prohibiting denial of courtroom entry solely for attire and (2) a pilot workforce program that the bill would allow the division to establish. “Research shows that people fare better in court if they wear professional attire. However…that is just not an option for some people,” Shipack said. He added the bill replaces mandatory language with permissive language for the pilot so outside nonprofits can be incentivized to work with parole and probation.

Why it matters

Proponents argued the measure addresses practical barriers—transportation, work schedules and lack of funds—that can keep people from obtaining counsel, testifying or otherwise participating in proceedings. Witnesses from the ACLU of Nevada, the Clark and Washoe county public defenders’ offices, the NAACP Las Vegas chapter, and local nonprofits gave examples of defendants turned away or delayed by courtroom dress standards. Angela Knott of the Washoe County Public Defender’s Office recounted a case in which a client was turned away during sentencing for wearing work clothes; she said the defendant later returned and received probation, but that the denial had caused significant hardship.

Key details and adjustments discussed

- Court access: The bill as presented would bar courts from denying defendants access to the courtroom solely because they lack “professional attire.” Presenters said judges retain discretion for truly unreasonable dress, and committee members pressed for language that preserves judicial decorum and separation-of-powers concerns raised by courts of limited jurisdiction.

- Bail provisions removed: Shipack and Jackson said they removed the bail-related sections after stakeholder conversations. Jackson confirmed at the hearing that the portions addressing bail would be struck from the bill.

- Pilot employment program: The amendment changes “shall” to “may,” making the workforce program optional for the Division of Parole and Probation and thereby lowering the statutory compulsion on the division. Tamra Jackson, Chief of the Department of Public Safety Division of Parole and Probation, testified in neutral and listed existing partners the division works with (Nevada JobConnect, TMCC, Foundation for an Independent Tomorrow, Nevada Partners, Urban League, Workforce Connections, Hope for Prisoners) and said the division already collaborates with community providers and would review any fiscal note tied to a new pilot.

- Custody/sentencing factors: Sections proposing that judges consider a defendant’s participation in treatment or workforce pathways drew questions. Assemblymember Roth asked whether listing participation history could be “double-edged” when people have gaps in treatment; Shipack acknowledged the section needs further work. Jackson and Shipack said the intent is to ensure that if a person is actively engaging in treatment or employment pathways those facts can be considered in custody or sentencing decisions.

Committee questions and concerns

Committee members repeatedly asked how the bill would interact with courts’ authority to manage courtroom decorum and whether the new language would improperly intrude on judicial discretion. Shipack said he is working with the courts of limited jurisdiction on an amendment to address separation-of-powers concerns. Legal counsel Carly O’Krent told the committee that similar statutory directives exist elsewhere in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), but said stakeholders are collaborating on precise language.

Public testimony

Supporters—ACLU of Nevada, Clark and Washoe public defenders’ offices, NAACP Las Vegas, Aladdin Bail Bonds (Crerar Nevada), community callers and nonprofit advocates—said the measure would reduce failures to appear, warrants and collateral penalties that fall disproportionately on low-income people and people of color. Callers and in-person witnesses described instances where people were delayed, rescheduled or risked failure-to-appear because of dress-related denial of entry. Several speakers urged on-site resources such as donated clothing or mobile clothing services near courthouses.

Opposition was limited and focused primarily on the now-removed bail language; the Nevada District Attorneys Association said they had concerns about bail-related provisions that sponsors agreed to withdraw. No formal floor action or committee vote was recorded at the hearing.

Where AB 320 stands

At the close of the hearing, Jackson said sponsors would remove the bail section and continue discussing custody-factor wording with stakeholders and the judiciary. He and Shipack said they also intend to refine the courtroom-attire language so it protects access without stripping appropriate judicial discretion.

What’s next

The committee did not take a formal vote at the hearing. Sponsors said they will circulate a revised conceptual amendment to address separation-of-powers concerns, clarify custody-factor language and keep the pilot program permissive. Implementation details—funding for a pilot, reporting requirements, or models for on-site clothing assistance—were not specified and will be worked out with stakeholders.