A recent appeal filed in Arizona's Court of Appeals challenges a permanent injunction as an unconstitutional prior restraint, alleging that the billionaire plaintiff obtained the order without evidence, while the court ignored constitutional defenses and a potential conflict of interest went undisclosed.
The appeal, now formally docketed, argues that the injunction violates the First Amendment because it was issued without the heightened scrutiny required for public figures and without specific factual findings. Under Supreme Court precedent, prior restraint carries a heavy presumption against constitutional validity and is permissible only in rare circumstances. The lower court, however, allowed the plaintiff to plead at a lower standard and refused to rule on preserved constitutional rights, including First Amendment protections that were properly raised and briefed.
Central to the appeal is the claim that the injunction was entered without evidentiary support. The plaintiff allegedly failed to produce court-ordered discovery that the Court of Appeals had deemed relevant, and later 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: a constitutionally defective prior restraint, a due-process violation from lack of evidence, a procedural breakdown from destroyed discovery, a potential conflict of interest involving the presiding judge, a structural integrity issue within the civil division, a departure from constitutional pleading standards, and a refusal to adjudicate preserved constitutional rights. These issues are now before an appellate panel for the first time.
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. The appeal seeks full vacatur of the injunction and clarification of the constitutional standards required before any Arizona court may restrict speech. A three-judge panel is expected to be assigned shortly.
This appeal underscores the importance of safeguarding constitutional protections against government censorship, ensuring due process, and maintaining judicial integrity. The outcome could have significant implications for how courts handle prior restraints and judicial disclosures in Arizona and beyond.
