Assembly Bill 278 would designate the month of July as Muslim American Heritage Month in Nevada and ask the governor to issue an annual proclamation encouraging observance.

Sponsor Assemblymember Brittany Miller framed the bill as recognition and public education about Nevada's Muslim residents and their contributions. "In proclaiming July as Muslim American Heritage Month, we are encouraging stakeholders across Nevada to shine a light on the invaluable contributions they make in this state and this country," Miller said in committee testimony, noting state and local precedents and that several other states and localities already observe a similar month.

Supporters included the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, Nevada System of Higher Education representatives, Muslim community organizers and interfaith partners who said the designation would promote understanding and counter prejudice. Medina Yousufzai of OneAPIA Nevada said the bill sends "a message that we are a part of this nation." The Anti‑Defamation League also testified in support, noting shared interest in standing against discrimination.

Opponents — including faith‑based callers and civic groups — raised constitutional and precedent concerns. Several speakers objected to the choice of July as the month, arguing July contains Independence Day and should not be repurposed to honor a single faith. Others argued government should not appear to elevate one religion over others; multiple callers urged the committee to reject the bill or to consider a secular alternative such as "American Heritage Month." Several opponents also said similar recognitions elsewhere occur in January and suggested the sponsor could switch months.

Miller told the committee she consulted with communities and that several local governments had used July; she said a number of states use July and that local Clark County action also used that month. The sponsor said she had discussed January (a congressional resolution and some states use January) but that local stakeholders preferred July to align with some existing local recognitions.

The committee heard both broad support from civil‑liberties and higher‑education groups and a large, vocal set of callers opposed to the bill as written. Senators acknowledged the sensitivity of the subject, including questions about religious neutrality and calendar placement, and thanked the sponsor for outreach.

Ending: The hearing closed after more than 30 minutes of public callers for and against the measure. The sponsor said she would continue outreach. The committee did not vote during the hearing; members suggested possible technical amendments or reporting language if the sponsor pursues the measure further.