The Arizona Supreme Court issued a significant ruling on September 18, 2026, regarding public records laws in the case of Matthew Abraham v. Arizona Board of Regents (CV-25-0020-PR). The court's decision clarifies the standards for how public agencies must handle requests for records and the rights of individuals seeking access to those records. This ruling affects both public entities and citizens, emphasizing the importance of transparency in government operations.
Dr. Matthew Abraham, a tenured English professor at the University of Arizona, raised concerns about hiring practices at the university that he believed violated Proposition 107, which prohibits discrimination based on race, sex, or gender in state hiring. After being denied certain positions, Abraham submitted multiple public records requests from November 2018 to September 2020, seeking information about hiring practices. His requests included data from surveys used in hiring and details about the selection processes for various positions.
The University of Arizona responded to Abraham's requests by providing some documents but withholding others, citing confidentiality and privacy concerns. Notably, the university denied Abraham's request for an audio recording of a committee meeting, stating it would be deleted shortly after use for transcription. After Abraham's attorney sent a demand letter in October 2020, the university acknowledged its previous errors and agreed to produce more records. However, by November 2020, the university informed Abraham that the audio recording was no longer available.
In September 2021, Abraham filed a Special Action Complaint against the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR), alleging that the university had wrongfully denied his requests and sought damages, including attorney fees. The superior court dismissed several counts of his complaint, ruling that some claims were time-barred and that ABOR had fulfilled its obligations by providing records. After a trial, the court denied Abraham relief, stating that he had not demonstrated that the audio recording existed or had been wrongfully withheld.
On appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court addressed several key issues. The court ruled that a trial court must review de novo, or anew, an agency's determination regarding whether requested public records are exempt from disclosure. The court also held that if a public entity destroys a record after a request has been made, this constitutes a denial of access to that record. Furthermore, the court clarified that a requester must file a legal action to establish eligibility for an attorney fee award in a public records dispute, but the definition of “substantially prevailed” includes results from the entire dispute.
The court ruled, "If a public agency destroys a record after receiving a public records request for it, the effect is to deny the request, for the requester will not have access to the record or the right to copy it."
Additionally, the court stated, "The trial court must review de novo both the public entity’s conclusions regarding exemptions to disclosure, and whether specific documents satisfy those exemptions, always with a presumption of disclosure."
The ruling was authored by Justice Clint Bolick, with the support of Chief Justice Timmer, Vice Chief Justice Lopez, and other justices. The court's decision reversed parts of the lower court's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings, emphasizing the need for transparency and accountability in public records requests.
This ruling has significant implications for future public records disputes in Arizona. It reinforces the idea that public agencies must be diligent in maintaining records and responding to requests. It also establishes that the destruction of records after a request has been made is a serious violation of the law. This decision may encourage more individuals to seek access to public records, knowing they have legal backing in their requests.
Going forward, public entities in Arizona will need to ensure they comply with the court's directives regarding public records requests. The ruling may also prompt discussions about potential legislative changes to further clarify and strengthen public records laws. As for Abraham, the case will return to the lower court for reconsideration of his claims in light of the Supreme Court's ruling.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether the case could be appealed further or if any related cases are pending. However, the Supreme Court's decision sets a clear precedent for how public records laws should be interpreted and enforced in Arizona.