Ninth Circuit revives Nevada brothel sex trafficking suit, grants Jane Doe anonymity

A federal appeals panel ruled a lower court wrongly dismissed a sex trafficking lawsuit filed against Nevada's legal brothels. Jane Doe is now allowed to proceed anonymously.

Appeals court reinstates sex trafficking claims against Nevada's legal brothel system

A Ninth Circuit panel on Wednesday revived a lawsuit brought by a woman who says she was sex trafficked through Nevada's state-licensed brothels, ruling that the lower court had abused its discretion when it dismissed the case over her request to remain anonymous, Courthouse News Service reports.

Jane Doe's suit was thrown out last year after a federal district court judge denied her motion to proceed under a pseudonym, finding she had not sufficiently demonstrated why her case should deviate from the standard that court proceedings are public record.

The three-judge appeals panel disagreed on all counts.

"The District Court committed a clear error in judgment in the analysis that it undertook to weigh those three factors," the panel wrote, referring to the standard balancing test courts apply when evaluating anonymity requests: the plaintiff's need for anonymity, potential prejudice to the opposing side, and the public's interest in knowing who is involved.

Safety concerns improperly discounted

Doe alleges she was trafficked and sexually exploited between 2017 and 2022 within Nevada's regulated brothel industry. She sought anonymity on the grounds that public disclosure of her identity could expose her to retaliation, physical danger, and reputational harm.

The lower court acknowledged those concerns but gave them little weight, in part because the same risks could apply to others in the same industry. The appeals panel rejected that reasoning.

"The fact that Doe's assertions may apply broadly to others in the industry does not necessarily mean that Doe lacks a need for anonymity for those same reasons," the panel wrote. "Accordingly, we conclude that the District Court made a clear error in judgment by giving little or no weight to Doe's assertions of her need for anonymity."

Prejudice and credibility arguments rejected

The lower court had also determined that allowing Doe to proceed anonymously would unfairly prejudice the defendants, reasoning that she intended to litigate publicly while shielding her own identity. The appeals panel called that conclusion "erroneous."

Both sides would face the same restrictions on publicly using her name, the panel noted. Moreover, the defendants retain access to her identity through the discovery process, limiting any practical disadvantage.

"Accordingly, the District Court made a clear error in judgment by overestimating the prejudice that defendants may face," the panel wrote.

On the question of public interest, the lower court had argued that the public has a stake in evaluating a plaintiff's credibility — an interest that would be undermined by anonymity. The appeals panel dismissed that framing outright.

"The public's perceptions of a party's credibility are irrelevant because credibility determinations are reserved for the jury," the panel wrote.

Constitutional challenge to Nevada's brothel system

Doe originally filed her lawsuit in February 2024. In it, she characterizes Nevada's legal brothel system as a state-sanctioned sex trade that violates the 13th Amendment's prohibition on slavery and involuntary servitude.

Her central argument is that Nevada bans independent prostitution, meaning all legal sex work must occur under the control of a third party — whom she refers to as pimps. That structural requirement, she argues, creates the conditions for exploitation under the watch of local government.

Her complaint also describes practices inside legal brothels that she characterizes as "debt bondage": women allegedly confined to brothel premises for weeks at a time, required to hand over 50% of their earnings, and subject to fines for violating house rules.

She further contends that certain brothels have actively profited from what she argues amounts to a legalized form of sex trafficking.

Attorneys for both sides did not respond to requests for comment.

The panel that issued Wednesday's ruling consisted of U.S. Circuit Judges Mark Bennett, a Donald Trump appointee, and Gabriel Sanchez, appointed by Joe Biden. U.S. District Judge John Holcomb, a Trump appointee from the Central District of California, sat by designation.

Source: Courthouse News Service