In a victory for greater government transparency, the Arizona Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of the Goldwater Institute today in its lawsuit against the city of Phoenix, which refused to turn over records about its closed-door labor union negotiations. The ruling reaffirms that courts at all levels have a responsibility to meaningfully scrutinize the government when it withholds records from the public.
Because Arizona’s public records law embodies a “strong presumption of transparency and public access,” government officials cannot hide behind “vague” or “purely speculative” justifications for withholding records. The ruling means that public-sector unions and their allies in city hall will no longer be able to permanently hide secret deals from the public on the grounds that keeping the public in the dark is in the “best interests of the state.”
The case began in 2022, when the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association refused to comply with Phoenix’s city code requiring it to submit draft contract proposals for public comment before beginning negotiations with the city. That proposal and subsequent records exchanged during the closed-door negotiation process concern the expenditure of tens of millions of taxpayer dollars as well as the terms and conditions of employment for first responders.
City residents and taxpayers deserve to know what the union was demanding and what city leaders were offering during that process. But all of that was kept hidden from the public. That’s why the Goldwater Institute requested the negotiation records from the city.
City leaders refused to produce the documents claiming they were exempt from disclosure under the judicially created “best interests of the state” exception to Arizona’s public records law. Goldwater sued.
A trial judge sided with the city and the Arizona Court of Appeals largely agreed. Goldwater took the case to the Arizona Supreme Court, arguing that the city could not rely on a vague conclusion that public disclosure may cause the city to suffer some speculative harm.
In today’s opinion, the Arizona Supreme Court agreed with Goldwater that government entities cannot withhold records based on speculative claims of harm. It reversed the Court of Appeals and returned the case to the trial court with instructions to review the withheld documents—something it had not done—and reevaluate whether the city met its burden.
The court stated that when a public body withholds public records by claiming that disclosure would not be in its “best interests,” it must prove “a degree of likelihood of specific, material harm resulting from disclosure.” The court noted that “if the ‘best interests of the state’ exception could be satisfied merely by asserting it in a conclusory, self-serving fashion, it would defeat the strong presumption of transparency and public access embodied in our public records statutes.”
The court also stated that because the city has already negotiated a subsequent contract with the union (two, in fact!), it has no basis now to withhold the records from prior negotiations that Goldwater requested. Even if the city could prove that the “best interests of the state” exception applied, courts apply it narrowly and for only so long as necessary. The city must now produce those documents.
The Arizona Supreme Court’s decision effectively means that where the government provides weak justifications for hiding records, courts will order them disclosed, but that concrete and specific reasons can sometimes justify limited withholding.
Citizens have a right to know what their government is up to and should have an opportunity to provide feedback about labor negotiations and other public activities. As today’s decision affirms, that’s the whole point of our public records laws.
Read the Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling here. You can learn more about the case here, and click here to learn more about how you can use public records laws to learn more about what your local government is up to.
Parker Jackson is a Staff Attorney at the Goldwater Institute.
