Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes announced plans to seek a new indictment against allies of former President Donald Trump, after the Arizona Supreme Court declined to revive the original 2020 election case. The court's terse June 2 denial effectively ended a two-year-old prosecution cloud over figures including Mark Meadows and Rudy Giuliani, according to the source. Mayes's office will return the case to a grand jury, a spokesperson said, without offering further details.

The procedural defect that killed the first case

The original indictment, which named Trump as an unindicted co-conspirator, was dismissed by a trial judge because prosecutors failed to present the grand jury with the precise legal text the allies were accused of violating. That error, as the source reports, was the sole reason for the dismissal last year. Mayes's request to overturn that ruling was denied without explanation by the Arizona Supreme Court on June 2, 2025.

A dwindling docket: Michigan, Georgia, and Jack Smith all dropped their cases

The Arizona ruling aligns with a broader trend of election interference cases being abandoned after Trump's 2024 electoral victory. According to the source, similar indictments were dismissed in Michigan and Georgia, and special prosecutor Jack Smith dropped federal charges against Trump. Defense attorneys in Arizona argued that the law permitted competing slates of electors,making the original charges tenuous from the start.

Who is in the crosshairs of Mayes's revived effort?

The original case targeted a tight circle of Trump's closest associates: former chief of staff Mark Meadows, attorneys Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman, and nearly a dozen GOP activists who falsely claimed to be legitimate presidential electors after Trump's defeat in Arizona. The source notes that Trump himself was named as an unindicted co-conspirator. It remains unclear whether the new grand jury will re-nominate the same list or broaden the scope.

The 2022 federal amendment that changed the elector rules

The legal landscape shifted significantly after a 2022 amendment to federal law, which clarified that a state can submit only one slate of electors and that state governors must certify them. As the article states,this change undercut the defense argument that multiple slates were permissible if results were contested. That amendment now forms a key part of Mayes's potential argument in front of a new grand jury.

What remains unknown about the new grand jury strategy

Mayes's office declined to comment on timing or substance, leaving several critical questions open. will the same procedural flaw—failure to cite the exact legal text—be corrected? Will the new indictment include Trump himself, or keep him as an unindicted co-conspirator? And will any of the original defendants, many of whom now have presidential pardons or other protections, be able to negotiate a resolution before the grand jury meets? The source offers no answers, only the announcement of Mayes's intent.