Fact Check: "Mayes vows to challenge Trump's unconstitutional order in district courts."
What We Know
The claim that "Mayes vows to challenge Trump's unconstitutional order in district courts" is based on recent statements made by Arizona Attorney General Mayes. According to a press release from the Arizona Attorney General's office, Mayes has expressed a commitment to continue legal battles in district courts following a Supreme Court decision. The release emphasizes the ongoing efforts to protect Arizona's interests and those of co-plaintiffs against what they describe as unlawful actions by the federal government.
In a separate context, Mayes was part of a coalition of 19 attorneys general who filed a lawsuit against President Trump's policies, which they deemed unlawful. This lawsuit was initiated in April 2025, and Mayes stated, "President Trump's actions are unlawful and we will continue to fight against them" (source-2).
Analysis
The statements made by Mayes indicate a clear intention to pursue legal challenges against actions taken by the Trump administration. However, the characterization of these actions as "unconstitutional" is a matter of legal interpretation and is not universally accepted. The Supreme Court's recent ruling suggests that district court judges may have overstepped their authority, which complicates the narrative that Mayes's challenges will be straightforward or guaranteed success (source-5).
The reliability of the sources cited is generally strong, as they come from official press releases and reputable news outlets. However, the interpretation of Trump's actions as unconstitutional is subjective and can vary widely depending on political and legal perspectives. The press releases are official statements from the Attorney General's office, which may carry an inherent bias in favor of framing the narrative in a way that supports their legal stance.
Conclusion
Verdict: Needs Research
The claim that Mayes vows to challenge Trump's unconstitutional order in district courts is supported by statements from Mayes and the context of ongoing legal actions. However, the characterization of the order as unconstitutional is not definitively established and is subject to interpretation. Further research is needed to understand the legal implications of these challenges and the outcomes of the lawsuits initiated by Mayes and her coalition.
