The Arizona Supreme Court ruled unanimously Friday that judges must independently decide whether agencies may withhold or redact specific public records, rejecting a more deferential standard that had favored agency decisions. The September 18 opinion in Abraham v. Arizona Board of Regents also held that destroying a record after it has been requested amounts to denying access and broadened how courts may assess whether a requester substantially prevailed for purposes of attorney fees.
The ruling has statewide consequences for anyone seeking records from public bodies. In the court’s 15-page opinion, Justice Clint Bolick wrote that trial courts must review both the asserted reason for withholding and its application to each disputed document without deferring to the agency. The court said deference would undermine Arizona law’s strong presumption of transparency.
The dispute began after University of Arizona professor Matthew Abraham sought records between 2018 and 2020 concerning appointment and hiring practices. The university produced some material, redacted or withheld other records, and said an audio recording of a committee meeting was no longer available. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded parts of the case and vacated part of the Court of Appeals opinion, according to the Arizona Judicial Branch’s September 18 release.
For agencies, the clearest operational consequence concerns retention. Arizona law requires public bodies to protect official records from loss or destruction, and to promptly furnish eligible copies. The governing records-maintenance statute makes agencies responsible for preservation and treats a failure to respond promptly as a denial. A separate preservation statute says state-agency records may not be destroyed unless the state library determines they no longer have administrative, legal, fiscal, research or historical value.
The justices concluded that destroying the requested committee recording was a wrongful denial because the pending request gave the record continuing legal value. An internal retention schedule could not override the statute. That holding gives requesters a route to challenge post-request destruction even when the original file no longer exists.
The fee ruling is also practical. Under A.R.S. § 39-121.02, a court may award reasonable attorney fees when a requester substantially prevails. The Supreme Court said courts may consider the full dispute, including records produced only after a requester hired counsel and before or during litigation; eligibility still requires filing an action.
The decision does not mean every requested record must be released. Privacy, confidentiality and the state’s interests can still justify withholding. What changes is who makes the decisive call: agencies may decide first, but courts must independently test the legal basis and each disputed redaction or withholding. Public offices should preserve requested material immediately and document any claimed exemption record by record.
Requesters should likewise keep dated copies of requests, agency responses and follow-up correspondence. The opinion makes those records important because fee eligibility can turn on the results achieved across the entire dispute, not only on a document formally ordered released after a lawsuit reaches judgment.
