A fast-changing federal immigration docket and a stalled Congress are again pushing policy fights into court, and Arizona’s role in those cases will turn on who wins the attorney general’s race this fall. In the same week a new federal asylum rule took immediate effect, a Senate effort to fast-track protections for some Temporary Protected Status holders failed to clear a procedural hurdle, setting up the next venue for these disputes: multistate lawsuits led by state attorneys general.
According to the Arizona Capitol Times, coordinated litigation by attorneys general has become a dominant driver of federal policy outcomes, with both parties using coalitions to halt or rework presidential initiatives and corporate practices. Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes “has joined around 60 multistate lawsuits, 46 of which have been filed against the Trump administration,” the paper reported, and her Republican challenger, Senate President Warren Petersen, would likely shift the state’s litigation posture if elected. https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2026/07/29/multistate-litigation-a-driving-force-in-federal-policy/
On immigration, the Arizona Mirror reported that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services published a rule allowing asylum officers to bypass interviews and send cases directly to an immigration judge, expediting denials and deportations. The rule took effect immediately. In Congress, Maryland Democrat Chris Van Hollen sought unanimous consent to advance a bill creating a legal pathway for some TPS holders from Haiti and Syria, but a Missouri Republican objected, blocking the fast track, the Mirror reported. https://azmirror.com/2026/07/28/repub/new-trump-asylum-rule-could-push-444000-cases-toward-quick-denials-and-deportations/ and https://azmirror.com/2026/07/29/repub/senate-republican-blocks-fast-track-bill-shielding-haitian-syrian-tps-holders/
The legal consequences of these policy shifts will be shaped by which multistate coalitions assemble and where they file. Political scientist Paul Nolette told the Capitol Times that AG coalitions now operate like “a machine” that did not exist two decades ago, noting their growing influence as a “thorn in the side” of the White House when the other party holds state offices. His research cited by the paper reports Democratic AGs prevailed in 83 percent of cases against Trump’s first-term policies, while Republican AGs prevailed in 74 percent of cases against Biden.
The Capitol Times also cataloged outcomes where multistate suits produced immediate remedies. After President Trump’s second inauguration, states sued over an executive order attempting to eliminate birthright citizenship; a federal district court issued a nationwide stop and the Ninth Circuit later ruled the order unconstitutional, the paper reported. Coalitions also secured rulings halting a shutdown-era refusal to fund SNAP, striking down an executive order restricting mail-in voting and voter eligibility, and blocking a law cutting Medicare and Medicaid funding to providers of gender-affirming care. The Democratic Attorneys General Association, cited in the report, tallied 120 lawsuits filed against the Trump administration during his second term, with multistate coalitions winning, at least initially, in 63 of 77 rulings so far.
