While a Republican-controlled Congress has essentially stood by and let it happen, many Democratic state attorneys general have picked up the slack. Among those leading the charge is Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, who has joined two dozen lawsuits to challenge, block and push back against what she says are the unconstitutional actions of the Trump administration.
Many of these lawsuits relate to blocking the Trump administration’s attempt to freeze federal funding, much of which is previously allocated in Arizona. According to an Aug. 8 press release from her office, Mayes’ lawsuits have protected $1.5 billion in federal funds allocated to the Grand Canyon State.
Every other day, it seems, Mayes is announcing another lawsuit against Trump. Some have fared better than others. It’s a lot to keep track of, so Phoenix New Times is doing the hard work for you. Here’s a rundown of the suits Mayes has filed against Trump and his officials, and what’s become of them.
Birthright citizenship
Filed: Jan. 21What it’s about: This lawsuit was filed by four states in a federal court in Seattle. It argues that Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship — which grants citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, excepting the children of diplomats — violated the 14th Amendment, as well as the federal Immigration and Nationality Act.
“No executive order can supersede the United States Constitution and over 150 years of settled law,” Mayes said in a statement announcing the lawsuit.
The latest: In late June, the Supreme Court took up the case to rule on a question within the broader birthright citizenship question. In a 6-3 ruling along ideological lines, the court said that lower federal courts couldn’t issue nationwide injunctions to block executive orders. Instead, plaintiffs have to sue on an individual basis, which is likely to flood the lower courts. A spokesperson for Mayes’ office said that her lawsuits are unlikely to be impacted because they’ve been “careful to craft appropriate injunctions” to limit them to the plaintiff states.
That Supreme Court ruling didn’t touch the specific question of Trump’s birthright citizenship ban, which remains blocked by the courts after a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction on the executive order in February. Most recently, in late July, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the lower district court’s ruling that denying a person born in the U.S. is “unconstitutional” under the 14th Amendment. The Trump administration appealed that decision.
In a statement in early August, Mayes reaffirmed to Arizonans that “birthright citizenship remains the law of the land.”
Withholding federal funding
Filed: Jan. 28What it’s about: The federal lawsuit was filed by 23 states in Rhode Island. On Jan. 27, Trump’s Office of Management and Budget directed all federal agencies to pause the majority of federal assistance funding and loans to states and other entities beginning the next day. Mayes’ lawsuit argues that the policy jeopardized “state programs that provide critical health and childcare services to families in need, deliver support to public schools, combat hate crimes and violence against women, provide life-saving disaster relief to states and more.”
The latest: In March, Judge John McConnell granted the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction to block the administration’s freezing of Federal Emergency Management Agency aid money. The administration appealed that ruling, which was dismissed after they failed to pay the required filing fee. Nearly $1.4 billion in federal funding for seven Arizona state agencies will remain unfrozen as the case continues to play out.
Keep private information away from DOGE
Filed: Feb. 7What it’s about: This lawsuit was filed in federal court in New York by 19 states. On Feb. 2, the Treasury Department adopted a policy granting Musk and DOGE employees — whom Mayes called “an unelected weirdo billionaire and his group of teenage hackers” — access to its central payment system operated by the Bureau of Fiscal Services. That system contains the private personal data of hundreds of millions of Americans and is used to issue Social Security and Medicare payments, among others.
The latest: In mid-February, District Judge Jeanette Vargas granted a preliminary injunction to block Musk and DOGE employees from accessing sensitive personal information, such as Social Security numbers and veteran benefits. The administration filed to end that injunction, which Vargas denied. That ruling is being appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Defunding medical and public health research
Filed: Feb. 10What it’s about: This lawsuit, filed in Massachusetts by 21 states and led by the attorneys general of Massachusetts, Illinois and Michigan, challenges the Trump administration’s cutting “indirect cost” reimbursements that cover medical and public health research at universities and research institutions. Mayes said the cuts would cause Arizona students and universities to “miss out on millions of dollars in critical funding and research support” that is “owed to Arizonans by law.”
The latest: In early April, Judge Angel Kelley granted a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from cutting the National Institutes of Health research funding grants. This action has stopped $35 million in NIH grants from being cut in Arizona. The Trump administration has appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Delegation of executive power to Elon Musk
Filed: Feb. 13
What it’s about: This lawsuit was filed in the District of Columbia by 14 states. It challenges Musk’s role in the Trump administration by arguing the Constitution’s Appointments Clause was violated by the creation of DOGE without congressional approval and the granting to Musk of “sweeping powers over the entire federal government” without the advice and consent of the Senate.
"The founders of this country would be outraged that, 250 years after our nation overthrew a king, the people of this country are now subject to the whims of a single unelected billionaire,” Mayes said in a statement.
The latest: District Judge Tanya Chutkan denied the plaintiffs’ request for a restraining order to limit Musk’s executive power in February. The case continues as Chutkan denied the government’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit in late May.
Several of the lawsuits filed against the Trump administration by Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes concern Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency.
Michael Santiago/Getty Images
Federal firings
Filed: March 6What it’s about: The lawsuit was filed in Maryland by 20 state attorneys general. They sued to stop those “illegal mass layoffs” of probationary federal employees, Mayes said in a statement. “These mass firings aren’t about performance — they’re about politics and ideology.”
The latest: In early April, U.S. District Judge James Bredar granted a preliminary injunction to reinstate the federal probationary employees at 20 federal agencies who live or work in the plaintiff states while the court case continues. The government filed a motion to stay the preliminary injunction, but the court rejected that motion.
Dismantling the Department of Education
Filed: March 13What it’s about: The lawsuit was filed in Massachusetts by 20 states. On March 11, the Trump administration announced it would be firing about half of the Department of Education’s workforce as a part of the administration’s efforts to dismantle the department. Mayes’ lawsuit seeks a court order to stop the administration from shuttering the department by cutting its workforce and programs, arguing the attempt to end the department is illegal and unconstitutional.
“It isn’t about better education policy,” Mayes said in a statement. “It is about tearing down public education by those who want to privatize it for profit."
The latest: In late May, District Judge Myong Joun granted the plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction, which prevents the government from firing department staff while the case plays out. The administration must also reinstate employees and “restore the Department to the status quo,” according to court documents. The government appealed that ruling and was denied.
The case is moving closer to trial as Joun approved a scheduling order on Aug. 21, which sets up deadlines for discovery, amendments and other briefs.
Public funding cuts
Filed: April 1What it’s about: Mayes joined the lawsuit on April 1, which is being led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha and Washington Attorney General Nick Brown. It was filed in Rhode Island, and Arizona is one of 23 states listed as a plaintiff.
On March 24, the Department of Health and Human Services terminated $11 billion in public health funding grants. In Arizona, this meant nearly $240 million was eliminated, which “immediately triggered chaos for State and local health jurisdictions,” according to the lawsuit.
The latest: In mid-May, District Judge Mary McElroy granted the plaintiff’s preliminary injunction to reinstate $239 million in public health funding and employment terminations while the case plays out, according to Mayes’ office. The government appealed that injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals, but that appeal was dismissed.
“The judge — a Trump appointee — made it clear: ‘Agencies do not have unfettered power to further a president’s agenda,'” Mayes said in a statement announcing the injunction. “And she’s exactly right. No administration is above the law.”
Voting restrictions
Filed: April 3What it’s about: Mayes and Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes joined the lawsuit, filed in Massachusetts, with 19 other states. It challenges Trump’s Elections Executive Order to implement increased federal oversight of locally controlled election systems. Mayes called the order “an unacceptable and unconstitutional intrusion on the rights of states” and said Trump is “hellbent on destroying 250 years of precedent.”
What’s the latest: In mid-June, Judge Denise Casper granted the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction, which prevents Trump’s executive order from taking effect while the case plays out. The Trump administration filed motions to modify the preliminary injunction, which was denied, and to dismiss the lawsuit, for which there is a hearing on Sept. 9.
The state GOP supported the administration’s citizenship requirement in a “friend of the court brief” in late May, arguing that it is “consistent with” Congress’ “express objective” of prohibiting “the registration of non-citizens.”
Protecting libraries and museums
Filed: April 4What it’s about: The lawsuit, led by the attorneys general of New York and Rhode Island, was filed in Rhode Island on behalf of 20 states. In March, the Trump administration issued an executive order to dismantle the three federal agencies that provide services and funding that support public libraries and museums. This resulted in the Institute of Museum and Library Services having to place almost its “entire staff on administrative leave” and “cut hundreds of grants for state libraries and museums,” Mayes said in a statement. “Our libraries rely on federal support to serve Arizonans who depend and benefit from them.”
The latest: In early May, District Judge McConnell granted a preliminary injunction to prevent $4.52 million in federal funding from being cut in Arizona, according to Mayes’ office. The government appealed that ruling to the Court of Appeals, which has yet to rule. The plaintiffs are also seeking summary judgment in this case to permanently prevent staffing cuts and closures.
National Institutes of Health
Filed: April 4What it’s about: Mayes joined 16 state attorneys general in this lawsuit filed in Massachusetts. Since January, the Trump administration has canceled and delayed grant funding meetings for the National Institutes of Health. Additionally, the NIH has “recently terminated large swaths of already-issued grants” for ongoing projects over their “perceived connection to ‘DEI,’ ‘transgender issues,’ ‘vaccine hesitancy,” or another topic disfavored by the current administration,” according to a press release from Mayes. The lawsuit is challenging these delays and terminations.
The latest: In late June, Judge William Young ruled that the defendant’s actions to cancel and delay NIH funding were “arbitrary and capricious in violation” of the law, ruling the administration’s policy “void” and “of no force and effect.” The case’s bench trial is scheduled for Sept. 22. Both parties will meet one time ahead of the trial, on Sept. 9, for a final pretrial conference.
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes has also sued over health funding cuts made by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,
Morgan Fischer
Restoring Department of Education programs
Filed: April 10What it’s about: This lawsuit was filed in New York on behalf of 15 states and the governor of Pennsylvania. On March 28, the Department of Education notified states that it was ending access to American Rescue Plan Act grants. The department had previously said states had access to these grants through March 2026.
Mayes slammed the administration for engaging “in a coordinated attack on students, families and the entire education system,” as these grants help provide support for unhoused students, including food, personal care items, classroom supplies, field trip funding and more, according to a Mayes statement.
The latest: On May 6, District Judge Edgardo Ramos granted a preliminary injunction to restore the states’ access to Department of Education programs. That order was expanded when Judge Ramos granted the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction requiring the Trump administration to process “outstanding and future requests for liquidation” of the Department of Education’s Education Stabilization Fund “without delay,” according to court documents. The administration has appealed that injunction, which remains in place as the case plays out.
Mayes' office said $6.8 million in federal education funding remains available in Arizona.
Tariffs
Filed: April 23What it’s about: The lawsuit, led by Mayes and Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, was filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade by 12 states. It looks to block Trump’s “illegal tariffs,” which would increase costs on most products nationwide. These tariffs include a 145% tariff on products from China, 25% tariffs on products from Canada and Mexico and a 10% tariff on most products from the rest of the world.
Mayes cited Trump’s actions as unconstitutional under Article I of the Constitution, which says only Congress has the “power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.”
The latest: After the U.S. Court of International Trade struck down Trump’s tariffs in late May, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed that decision on Aug. 29, ruling Trump’s tariffs unconstitutional under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Now, the government’s only remedy for keeping them in place is asking the Supreme Court to hear the case.
Arizona Democrat Rep. Greg Stanton celebrated the “victory” in a statement and called Trump’s tariffs a “power grab” and an “illegal overreach.”
AmeriCorps demolition
Filed: April 29What it’s about: The lawsuit was filed in Maryland by 24 states and Washington, D.C. Amid federal funding cuts, the Trump administration attempted to essentially eliminate the community-based service organization AmeriCorps by terminating 85% of the agency’s workforce, which “effectively ended the agency’s ability to continue,” Mayes said in a statement. “Donald Trump and Elon Musk have yet again violated the law and the separation of powers under the U.S. Constitution.”
Like the Peace Corps but operating in the continental U.S., AmeriCorps sends members to cities across the country to complete community service projects.
The latest: After Judge Debroah Boardman granted of a preliminary injunction preventing the government from terminating grants, firing employees and ending projects, the defendants decided to release the funds. In a court filing on Aug. 28, the Office of Budget and Management defendants “approved the spend plan for the remaining $184,898,010” and all funds for Fiscal Year 2025 “now have been apportioned and allocated.”
In a statement after the decision, Mayes celebrated OMB’s actions to release the funds as a “complete and total win” and said, “Donald Trump’s surrender in this case is a win for every Arizonan.”
Wind energy
Filed: May 5What it’s about: The lawsuit was filed in Massachusetts by 18 state attorneys general. It concerns Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order to halt all federal approvals related to the development of offshore and onshore wind energy projects. In a statement, Mayes called the move “bad policy” and “illegal.”
“In Arizona, wind energy projects on State Trust lands generate critical revenue that supports our public schools and other beneficiaries,” she said. “The Trump Administration’s blanket freeze undermines that progress, threatening both our economy and the environment.”
The latest: Both parties argued their cases on the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction on June 18 before Judge William Young. Young made a tentative ruling to allow the defendant’s motion to dismiss in part, while also denying part of it. Judge Young also denied a separate motion by the defendant to dismiss the case on July 3.
Dismantling of the Department of Health and Human Services
Filed: May 5What it’s about: The lawsuit was filed in Rhode Island by 19 state attorneys general. Since the Trump administration took office, Mayes has criticized its dismantling of the Department of Health and Human Services by firing thousands of federal health workers and shuttering vital programs like the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program and Head Start, which Mayes called “lifelines for Arizonans.” Additionally, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. consolidated 28 agencies overseen by HHS into just 15, which led to mass layoffs.
The latest: In early July, Judge Melissa R. Dubose granted the plaintiffs' preliminary injunction to stop Kennedy’s attempt to dismantle HHS. The government appealed the injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals, which has yet to rule. The government also filed a motion to dismiss the case entirely, which Dubose hasn’t ruled on.
“By firing public health workers en masse, the Trump administration would shutter child care centers, halt life-saving cancer research and skyrocket costs for state and local health agencies across the country that would have to foot the bill,” Mayes said in a statement after the July 18 ruling to uphold the injunction. “We will hold him accountable.”
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes has sued the administration of President Donald Trump 18 times already.
Rebecca Noble/Getty Images
Federal electric vehicle funding
Filed: May 7What it's about: The lawsuit was filed in western Washington by Mayes and 16 other state attorneys general. Shortly after taking office, Trump signed an executive order requiring all federal agencies to pause funding related to former President Joe Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. This pause impacted funding to the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program, which aimed to create electric vehicle charging stations across the nation. “Arizona will lose nearly $50 million in critical funding unless the courts block yet another illegal action by the Trump administration,” Mayes said in a statement.
The latest: On June 24, Judge Tana Lin granted the plaintiff’s preliminary injunction in 14 states, including Arizona, and denied it in two states and D.C. In the states where the injunction was approved, the administration is prevented from “suspending or revoking” the previously approved “State Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment Plans,” as well as restoring their legal status.
The defendants have until July 1 to comply with the order. Meanwhile, $48 million in federal funds for Arizona will be unfrozen while the case plays out, according to Mayes' office. Additionally, in a July 23 order, Lin allowed several organizations — including the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council and Climate Solutions — to join the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
Blocking the ‘National Energy Emergency’
Filed: May 9What it's about: The lawsuit was filed in western Washington alongside 14 other attorneys general. Trump declared a “national energy emergency” under the National Emergencies Act, which has allowed federal agencies to bypass environmental and public health reviews required by the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act and National Historic Preservation Act. In a press release, Mayes called Trump’s executive order “nothing more than a political stunt designed to benefit fossil fuel companies at the expense of Arizonans’ health and safety." The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare Trump’s executive order illegal.
The latest: The case is pending and no hearings have been held. Kirsten Engel, a former Arizona state senator who is running to take on Republican Rep. Juan Ciscomani for his congressional seat, is representing Arizona in the case.
Federal grant funding
Filed: June 24What it's about: The lawsuit was filed in Massachusetts alongside 20 other attorneys general. Since Trump took office, thousands of federal grants have been stripped away from states and grantees through a clause within the Office of Management and Budget’s regulations that allows agencies to terminate allocated federal grants if they “no longer effectuate… agency priorities.” The suit seeks to limit the administration’s ability to use this clause to strip away federal dollars from states, which they argue is unlawful based on “changes in agency preferences that occur after a grant is awarded.”
“The Trump administration’s slash-and-burn approach to federal grant funding has left Arizona communities scrambling to pick up the pieces,” Mayes said in a statement. “President Trump cannot illegally and arbitrarily rip away funding Arizonans rely on.”
The latest: The plaintiffs are seeking a declaratory judgment through summary judgment that the federal regulations do not independently authorize the administration to slash this funding. No rulings have been made.
Public health data
Filed: July 1What it's about: The lawsuit was filed in northern California alongside 20 other state attorneys general. It aims to block the Department of Health and Human Services from providing the Department of Homeland Security with personal health information and data. On June 13, it was reported that HHD transferred “en masse their state’s Medicaid data files, containing personal health records” to DHS, Mayes wrote in a press release, which the lawsuit suggested would help the department carry out “mass deportations” and other “large-scale immigration enforcement purposes.”
The latest: On Aug. 12, Judge Vince Chhabria granted the plaintiff’s preliminary injunction to block HHS from providing DHS, and therefore ICE, with Medicaid data for immigration enforcement purposes. However, the judge denied the plaintiffs' request to require “notice-and-comment rulemaking” for the federal agencies. The plaintiffs filed a second motion for a preliminary injunction on Sept. 4 to include two new plaintiff states, Kentucky and Wisconsin. Arguments on that motion will be heard before Judge Chhabria on Sept. 23.
Education grants
Filed: July 14What it's about: The lawsuit was filed in Rhode Island alongside 22 other state attorneys general and two state governors. Mayes’ lawsuit aims to block the Trump administration’s attempt to freeze $6.8 billion in Department of Education funding allocated to states nationwide. A total of $132 million was frozen in Arizona as a result of this decision, which Mayes said increases “costs for Arizona’s schools, cities and families,” in a press release. “It’s having an immediate and devastating impact.”
The freezing of these funds will impact six longstanding educational programs in the state, including those that provide technology for students, workforce development, extracurricular activities and classes for non-English speaking students.
The latest: On July 25, the Trump administration’s Department of Education announced that it would release the previously frozen billions of dollars in education grants, including $132 million in Arizona. In a statement, Mayes said the funding freeze “threw the start of the school year into chaos,” but celebrated securing the “funding our schools are legally owed.”
Following the release of funds, the plaintiffs, including Mayes, dismissed the case on Aug. 25. According to a press release from Mayes' office, the government must release the “full balance of education funding” by Oct. 3 under the agreement.
Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne said the release was “good news and no surprise to me,” and added that the Arizona Department of Education is working hard to “disperse these funds as soon as possible.” Save Our Schools Director Beth Lewis called the decision a “welcome relief for Arizona schools” and said it was “utterly unacceptable for the administration to play games with children’s education.”
The Trump administration is seeking to end a Federal Emergency Management Agency program that provides roughly $9.8 million in funds to Arizona communities.
Trump White House/Flickr/Public Domain
FEMA programs
Filed: July 16What it's about: The lawsuit was filed in Massachusetts alongside 20 other state attorneys general. It aims to block the dismantling of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Building Resilient Infrastructure Communities program, which provides funding to communities across the country to improve and protect their infrastructure against natural disasters. Mayes’ office is suing to protect the approximately $9.8 million in BRIC funds that have been allocated to communities across the state.
“Arizonans were counting on millions of these dollars to prevent future flooding in places like Buckeye and Camp Verde,” Mayes said in a statement. “We are in wildfire season and we need all hands on deck.”
The latest: The plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the program from ending. On Aug. 5, Judge Richard Stearns granted that preliminary injunction to prevent the federal government from spending BRIC funds for non-BRIC purposes while the case plays out.
New barriers to health care
Filed: July 17What it's about: The lawsuit was filed in Massachusetts alongside 18 other attorneys general and one state governor. It aims to block a new Health and Human Services and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services rule relating to coverage under the Affordable Care Act. The rule, which is set to take effect on Aug. 25, adds new verification requirements to how ACA marketplaces operate. Specifically, the “final rule” adds a new automatic monthly charge on all automatically reenrolled consumers who qualify for $0 premiums and shortens the open enrollment period for people signing up for health coverage. These new barriers could potentially deprive up to 1.8 million people nationwide of insurance coverage, according to Mayes’ office.
The latest: The plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the new rules from being implemented. A hearing for that motion is set for Aug. 13. No rulings have been made.
On Aug. 22, the plaintiffs sent a letter to the court about a recent Supreme Court decision in City of Columbus v. Kennedy. That case challenged the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' new “final rule” policy and the court stayed several provisions of that rule, including the $5 charge for automatic enrollees and new income verification requirements. However, the case will continue as the City of Columbus ruling didn’t touch one aspect of insurance premium adjustments under the “final rule.”
Public benefits
Filed: July 21What it's about: The lawsuit was filed in Rhode Island alongside 20 other state attorneys general. The suit aims to block new federal rules from the Health and Human Services, Education, Labor and Justice departments that “reinterpret” the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act. The new rules require “burdensome paperwork and bureaucratic changes,” such as the verification of immigration status, related to state safety net programs, such as victim services, Head Start, Meals on Wheels, adult education, mental health care and Community Health Centers, according to a press release from Mayes’ office.
In Arizona, 15,000 children rely on Head Start, more than 35,000 residents receive health care at statewide community health centers and 2.5 million Meals on Wheels meals are served yearly across the state.
The latest: The plaintiffs are asking the court to halt the new rules through preliminary and permanent injunctions. A hearing for the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction was held on Aug. 20. No rulings have been made.
SNAP recipients’ personal data
Filed: July 28What it's about: The lawsuit was filed in California alongside 21 other state attorneys general. The suit aims to block the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s demand that states give the department the personal information, including social security numbers and home addresses dating back five years, of recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. The demand would expose the personal information of nearly 900,000 Arizonans in the program, which is administered by the state with federal money.
“The Trump administration wants to use personal data as a weapon,” Mayes said in a statement. Her statement added that USDA’s demand is “part of a coordinated effort to collect personal information on Americans from every possible source” to use the data for “undisclosed purposes, including immigration enforcement.”
The latest: The coalition is asking the court to block the USDA demand and has requested an injunction. No rulings have been made.
