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.
Every other day, it seems, Mayes is announcing another lawsuit against Trump. 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: On Feb. 6, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction to prevent Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order from taking effect. In April, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would hear the case, but not on the merits of the administration's view of birthright citizenship. Instead, the Court took on a procedural issue related to the constitutionality of lower federal courts granting nationwide injunctions to block executive orders. In a 6-3 decision along ideological lines on June 27, the court ruled in favor of the administration.
Now, broad injunctions by federal courts cannot block executive orders taken by the president. Instead, plaintiffs will have to sue on an individual basis, which is likely to flood the lower courts and have a significant impact on many of the other lawsuits that the Trump administration and Mayes are engaged in currently. Trump celebrated the decision on Truth Social, calling it a “giant win” and claiming the 14th Amendment only meant to give citizenship to “babies of slaves.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling will take effect in 30 days. Mayes made it clear she still plans to fight Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship in a statement after the ruling. “We remain confident that his blatantly unconstitutional order will be reined in by the courts,” Mayes stated. “Our fight continues.”
This ruling could potentially impact the other lawsuits in which Mayes is involved, but the plaintiff states have been “careful to craft appropriate injunctions” to limit them to the plaintiff states, according to a Mayes spokesperson. As a result, “we do not anticipate a significant impact on our other pending cases,” the spokesperson said.
Despite the Supreme Court’s decision, the legality of Trump’s executive order banning birthright citizenship is still being decided in the courts. In a July 24 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed and “fully agree(d)” with the lower district court’s ruling that denying a person born in the U.S. is “unconstitutional” under the 14th Amendment.
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: On Jan. 31, the court granted a temporary restraining order to stop the freezing of federal funds. On March 6, U.S. District Chief Judge John McConnell granted a preliminary injunction to block the administration’s freeze more permanently. The order also mandated the unfreezing of millions of dollars in aid from the Federal Emergency Management Agency by March 14. However, the plaintiffs have argued that FEMA did not follow the court’s order by the deadline. On April 4, McConnell again ordered FEMA to follow the court’s order.
The Trump administration appealed the preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals. According to the court docket, the court dismissed the appeal on May 12 after the administration’s lawyer failed to pay the required filing fee. Federal dollars 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: On Feb. 8, the District Judge Paul Engelmayer granted a temporary restraining order to block Musk and DOGE employees from accessing people’s “sensitive personal information,” such as Social Security numbers and veteran benefits. The order required DOGE employees to “immediately destroy any and all copies of records they have already obtained.”
Two weeks and a switch of judge later, District Judge Jeanette Vargas granted a preliminary injunction. The government filed a motion to dissolve that injunction, which was denied by Vargas on May 27.
The plaintiff states are awaiting Vargas’ ruling on their May 23 request to permanently bar Musk and DOGE employees’ access to sensitive personal information maintained by the Treasury Department while the case plays out. On July 24, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit’s First Amendment claim. A ruling has not been made.
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: Less than six hours after the lawsuit was filed, U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley granted the plaintiffs a temporary restraining order against the National Institutes of Health to stop the research funding cuts. On March 5, Kelley issued a nationwide preliminary injunction to stop the cuts until a final ruling is made in the case.
On April 4, the court granted a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from taking any more steps to enforce cut NIH grants. 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: The plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order was denied on Feb. 18, as District Judge Tanya Chutkan said the plaintiffs didn’t prove “clear evidence of imminent, irreparable harm.” But Mayes and the other plaintiffs did have a victory on May 27. Chutkan denied the government’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The plaintiffs can now move forward with their case and toward “a full airing of the facts,” a press release from Mayes states.
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: On April 2, 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. A previous temporary restraining order granted March 14 had preempted the firing of employees at 18 of those federal agencies, but it was set to expire April 1.
The government filed a motion to stay the preliminary injunction the next day, but the court rejected that motion while the case plays out.
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: District Judge Myong Joun granted the plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction on May 22. While the case plays out, the federal government is prevented from implementing Trump’s executive orders to fire half of department staff and must reinstate employees to “restore the Department to the status quo,” according to court documents, “such that it is able to carry out its statutory functions.”
The next day, the federal government appealed the judge’s ruling. But the preliminary injunction remains in place while the case plays out. A status conference before Joun was scheduled for June 9, but after the administration provided proof that the reduction-in-force notice to employees was rescinded, the conference was cancelled.
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: On April 4, U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy granted the plaintiffs a temporary restraining order against the administration. On May 16, McElroy granted a preliminary injunction to reinstate the public health funding and employment terminations in the plaintiff states while the case plays out. On July 15, the defendants appealed the preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
“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: On June 13, Judge Denise Casper granted the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction, preventing Trump’s executive orders from taking effect while the case plays out. The Trump administration filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit and modify the preliminary injunction. But in a July 18 decision, Casper kept intact the preliminary injunction, which prevents the administration from mandating proof of citizenship to vote in the plaintiff states. In a statement announcing the injunction, Mayes called Trump’s actions “an unconstitutional overreach,” adding that “states — not the federal government — run elections.”
The Republican Party of Arizona disagrees. On May 28, the state party joined several entities in filing “friend of the court” briefs. The party’s filing supported the administration’s citizenship requirement, stating that it is “consistent with” Congress’ “express objective” of prohibiting “the registration of non-citizens.” The Arizona GOP urged the court to rule in favor of proof of citizenship requirements.
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: On May 6, District Judge McConnell granted a preliminary injunction to block Trump’s executive order from taking effect while the case plays out. On May 16, the Trump administration appealed that ruling to the Court of Appeals. While the parties await a decision from the appeals court, the administration filed a motion to prevent the injunction from taking effect. The judge denied that motion on June 5.
he defendants must file status reports showing they are in compliance with the preliminary injunction.
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: On June 23, 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 administration filed a motion to stay his ruling pending appeal, but that order was denied. The case will now make its way through the U.S. Court of Appeals.
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.
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: Both parties argued their case before the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York on May 21. Nine days later, the court struck down Trump’s tariffs, effectively permanently preventing their implementation. The court’s ruling halted all existing tariffs and prevented the president from increasing them on China and the European Union, as Trump has threatened.
In reaction to the ruling, Mayes said she “spearheaded this lawsuit” because the tariffs “were poised to devastate our economy.” But before she could get too excited, the Trump administration immediately appealed the ruling and filed a motion to prevent the ruling from taking effect as the appeals process played out. However, the three-judge panel denied that motion on June 16 and tariffs will be paused as the appeals process plays out.
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 a preliminary injunction hearing in May, Judge Deborah Boardman ruled on June 5 that AmeriCorps couldn’t terminate grants, remove members from projects and cease projects. The ruling requires the agency to allow the return of National Civilian Community Corps members to service, according to court documents. However, other requests from the plaintiff states to put administrative staff on leave were denied.
“AmeriCorps represents the best of public service in this country,” Mayes said in a statement after the ruling. “The Trump administration’s reckless attempt to dismantle it was not just wrong. It was unlawful.”
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: On July 1, Judge Melissa R. Dubose granted Mayes and the other plaintiffs a preliminary injunction to halt Kennedy’s attempt to dismantle HHS. The layoffs have been stopped while the case plays out in court. The defendants filed a motion to vacate that injunction, but Dubose denied that motion on July 18.
“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 injunction ruling. “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. Funds will be unfrozen while the case plays out. 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.
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 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 July 11, the plaintiff states filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which, if granted, would temporarily prevent the release of this data while the case plays out. Judge Vince Chhabria will hear the parties' arguments on the motion on August 7 in San Francisco. No rulings have been made.
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: The plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the freeze of these funds. No rulings have been made.
On July 25, the Trump administration’s Department of Education announced that it would release the previously frozen billions of dollars in education grants. 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. A hearing for that motion is set for July 31. No rulings have been made.
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.
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. No rulings have been made.
