Arizona’s public records law generally gives the public the right to inspect records maintained by government agencies. But what happens when an agency refuses to release records, provides only portions of them, or destroys a record after someone asks for it?
In a September 18, 2026 decision, the Arizona Supreme Court addressed all three issues. The ruling in Abraham v. Arizona Board of Regents provides important clarification about government transparency and the rights of people seeking public records.
The decision also makes it potentially easier for people who successfully challenge an agency’s refusal to produce records to recover their attorney’s fees.
What Happened?
A professor at the University of Arizona, submitted several public records requests between 2018 and 2020 seeking information about the University’s hiring and appointment practices. The University provided some records but withheld others or removed portions of the documents, citing privacy, confidentiality, and other concerns.
One of the requested records was an audio recording of a university committee meeting. The University offered to let Abraham listen to the recording but would not provide him with a copy. Abraham retained an attorney, who sent a demand letter seeking the records. The University then released additional documents but withheld or redacted others. Abraham eventually filed a lawsuit challenging the University’s handling of his requests.
The Arizona Supreme Court addressed three important questions.
Government Agencies Do Not Get the Final Say on What Is Confidential.
Government agencies sometimes have legitimate reasons to withhold records. Certain information may be protected by statute or confidentiality concerns. But an agency cannot simply declare that a document is confidential and expect a court to accept that determination.
The Supreme Court clarified that when an agency claims a statutory exemption from disclosure, a judge must independently review whether the exemption applies and whether it justifies withholding or redacting the particular records at issue. For example, if a public agency refuses to release hiring records because it believes the information is confidential, a court must independently evaluate whether the law actually protects those records.
That does not mean every government record must be released. It means the government must be able to justify withholding it.
Destroying a Requested Record Is a Denial of Access.
The Court also addressed the destruction of the audio recording. The University argued that the recording no longer existed and therefore could not be produced. But the Supreme Court held that destroying a public record after it has been requested constitutes a denial of access under Arizona’s public records law. This distinction matters.
An agency cannot avoid scrutiny of its handling of a records request simply because the requested document or recording is no longer available. The ruling does not mean that every destruction of a public record automatically entitles the requester to monetary damages. Other legal requirements may apply. But destruction after a request is not a defense to a claim that access was denied.
Producing Records Before a Lawsuit Does Not Necessarily Avoid Attorney’s Fees.
Perhaps the most significant part of the ruling concerns attorney’s fees. Under Arizona law, a person who substantially prevails in a public records lawsuit may recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
But what happens when an agency initially refuses to produce records, then releases them after receiving a letter from an attorney, before a lawsuit is filed? The lower court concluded that Abraham could not recover fees based on records produced before litigation began. In its recent decision, the Supreme Court disagreed.
The Court held that although a lawsuit must be filed to establish eligibility for attorney’s fees under the statute, the judge must consider the requester’s success throughout the entire dispute, including records obtained before the lawsuit. In other words, an agency cannot necessarily avoid an attorney’s fee award by producing documents after receiving a demand letter but before litigation begins.
What Does This Mean for People Requesting Public Records?
The ruling provides several important protections for individuals and businesses seeking information from Arizona public agencies.
First, an agency’s decision to withhold records is not necessarily the final word. Courts must independently evaluate claimed statutory exemptions.
Second, agencies cannot avoid a public records challenge simply because a requested record was destroyed after the request.
Third, people who retain attorneys to obtain improperly withheld records may have a stronger basis for recovering attorney’s fees if litigation ultimately becomes necessary.
That does not mean every requester will recover fees. Courts must still evaluate whether the requester substantially prevailed, and fee awards remain subject to the applicable legal requirements.
The Bottom Line
Arizona’s public records law is intended to promote government transparency. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces that purpose by making clear that agencies must justify their decisions to withhold records and cannot necessarily avoid the consequences of an improper denial by producing records later.