OPINION
The Nevada attorney general is supposed to be the state’s lawyer — not the head of a permanent political resistance operation.
That distinction is becoming one of the clearest dividing lines in Nevada’s 2026 attorney general race.
In a new election preview published September 7, The Nevada Independent reported that Attorney General Aaron Ford has joined 56 lawsuits against the federal government during President Donald Trump’s second term. By comparison, the same report says Ford filed just five lawsuits against the federal government during Joe Biden’s presidency.
That contrast does not prove every lawsuit against the Trump administration was frivolous. Some involved serious questions about federal funding, privacy, election administration and the scope of executive power. Courts have ruled in Nevada’s favor in a number of those cases.
But the numbers do raise a question Nevada voters should be asking before choosing Ford’s successor:
When does defending Nevada end and partisan litigation begin?
The office should have one client: Nevada
Democratic nominee Nicole Cannizzaro told the Independent she would “absolutely” continue suing the Trump administration when she believes Nevadans’ rights are being violated. Republican nominee Adriana Guzmán Fralick said some of Ford’s lawsuits were necessary, but argued that “the majority” were politically driven.
Those positions are different, but the right standard should not depend on whether a Republican or Democrat occupies the White House.
The attorney general should sue the federal government when Nevada faces a concrete legal injury, when state authority is unlawfully overridden, when federal dollars are wrongfully withheld, or when the rights of Nevadans are genuinely threatened. The office should not be used simply to turn national partisan disagreements into taxpayer-funded lawsuits.
That is especially important because every lawsuit has a cost — in staff time, outside counsel, litigation risk and institutional focus.
Some of Ford’s cases involve legitimate Nevada interests
It would be misleading to pretend every case filed by Ford’s office is purely ideological.
For example, Nevada has challenged federal efforts involving access to sensitive personal data, conditions attached to counterterrorism funding, and federal contracting rules. Those cases involve real questions about privacy, state sovereignty and federal authority.
In August, Ford sued over federal demands involving personal information connected to TANF benefits. His office argued the policy could expose Social Security numbers, addresses and immigration-status information. In July, Nevada joined a challenge to federal conditions on counterterrorism funding that the state said would force changes in election administration and immigration enforcement.
Those are not imaginary Nevada interests.
But acknowledging that does not require accepting the idea that nearly every disagreement with Washington belongs in federal court.
The DEI lawsuit is exactly the kind of case voters should scrutinize
One example highlighted in the attorney general race is Ford’s June lawsuit over new federal contracting requirements tied to diversity, equity and inclusion policies.
Ford’s office argued that the administration imposed unclear requirements on federal contractors without proper notice and threatened contractors with severe penalties. The lawsuit was joined by 19 other attorneys general.
Guzmán Fralick’s campaign says that case did not meaningfully benefit Nevadans.
That disagreement gets to the heart of the election: Is the attorney general’s job to litigate every national policy dispute with which Nevada’s elected leadership disagrees, or should the office reserve its power for issues with a direct and substantial Nevada nexus?
There is also a public-safety contrast
The attorney general race is not only about Washington.
The Independent also highlighted the candidates’ disagreement over Nevada’s criminal-justice laws. Cannizzaro was Senate majority leader when lawmakers passed a sweeping 2019 criminal-justice bill that raised the dollar threshold at which theft becomes a felony and changed drug-trafficking thresholds.
Four years later, lawmakers created a new fentanyl-specific trafficking statute. Nevada law now sets trafficking in illicitly manufactured fentanyl at 28 grams, with higher penalties beginning at 42 grams.
Cannizzaro points to later legislation on smash-and-grab crime and fentanyl as evidence that she has responded to public-safety concerns. Guzmán Fralick argues the 2019 changes weakened Nevada’s criminal laws in the first place.
That is a substantive argument voters deserve to hear.
A better standard for Nevada’s next attorney general
Nevada does not need an attorney general who promises never to sue a Republican administration. It also does not need one who treats suing a Republican administration as part of the job description.
The standard should be simpler:
Does the case protect Nevada’s laws, Nevada’s taxpayers, Nevada’s constitutional authority or the rights and safety of Nevadans?
If the answer is yes, bring the case and defend it aggressively.
If the answer is that the lawsuit mainly advances a national political message, the attorney general should think twice before putting the state’s name — and taxpayer resources — behind it.
The office belongs to Nevada, not to a party.
Sources: The Nevada Independent, “To sue or not to sue? Legal fights against feds a major theme in attorney general race,” Sept. 7, 2026; Nevada Attorney General press releases on federal-contracting, TANF-data and counterterrorism-funding litigation; Nevada Legislature, 2023 fentanyl trafficking statutes.