A new appeal in Arizona is challenging a permanent injunction as an unconstitutional prior restraint, arguing that the lower court failed to apply the required constitutional standards and that the plaintiff’s conduct, including the destruction of evidence, undermined the integrity of the proceedings.
The case, now before the Arizona Court of Appeals, centers on an injunction issued by the Maricopa County Superior Court. According to the opening brief, the injunction was entered without evidentiary support and without any First Amendment analysis. The plaintiff, a billionaire, was allowed to plead at a lower, non-constitutional standard, despite the heightened requirements that apply to public figures. The court also refused to rule on preserved constitutional rights, including First Amendment protections that were properly raised and briefed.
Prior restraint, a form of government censorship that prohibits speech before it occurs, carries a “heavy presumption against constitutional validity” under U.S. Supreme Court precedent. It is permissible only in rare circumstances, and courts must make specific factual findings supported by evidence before restricting speech. The appeal argues that the injunction in this case falls far outside these constitutional boundaries.
The injunction remained in place for years despite the plaintiff’s refusal to produce court-ordered discovery, which the Court of Appeals previously ruled was relevant. The plaintiff subsequently destroyed those materials. According to filings, the destroyed documents contained information indicating a business relationship between the plaintiff and the presiding judge of the Maricopa County Superior Court. This relationship was never disclosed to the parties, despite the judge’s involvement in proceedings connected to the injunction.
The appeal outlines several structural failures, including a constitutionally defective prior restraint, a due-process failure due to the absence of evidentiary support, a procedural breakdown from destroyed discovery, a potential conflict of interest involving the presiding judge, and a departure from constitutional pleading standards. It also notes a refusal to adjudicate preserved constitutional rights.
The case is expected to draw attention from First Amendment advocates, judicial-ethics organizations, and legal observers concerned with transparency and accountability in Arizona’s courts. A three-judge panel is expected to be assigned shortly. The appeal seeks full vacatur of the injunction and clarification of the constitutional standards required before any Arizona court may restrict speech.
