Arizona Supreme Court Clarifies Standard for Withholding Public Records Under the “Best Interests of the State” Exception

By Joseph Kanefield and Eric H. Spencer

Government earns the public’s trust not behind closed doors, but in the light of public scrutiny. A recent Arizona Supreme Court decision will further open and transparentize government by narrowing a limited exception that allows certain public records to remain confidential.

On July 17, 2026, the Arizona Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Goldwater Institute v. City of Phoenix, clarifying the various factors that must be demonstrated when a public entity seeks to withhold public records under the common-law “best interests of the state” exception to Arizona’s public records law.¹

This case arose from a public records dispute between the Goldwater Institute and the City of Phoenix regarding collective bargaining communications between the City and the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, a police officers’ union.² At issue were draft Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) and negotiation proposals concerning wages, benefits, and employment terms.³ The City refused to disclose the records, invoking the “best interests of the state” exception and arguing that disclosure would “create a chilling effect” during active negotiations and hinder the process.⁴ The lower courts largely sided with the City and the Supreme Court granted review to clarify the applicable legal standards.⁵

Arizona law creates a strong presumption in favor of public access to government records. A public entity, however, may overcome that presumption by showing that one of several statutory or common law exceptions applies. The exception at the center of this case is the “best interests of the state” doctrine, which requires the court to weigh the public’s interest in disclosure against the “best interests of the state.”

The Goldwater Institute argued that to prevail under the test, the City must first prove, as a threshold matter, that there is a “greater-than-fifty-percent chance” that disclosure would cause specific, material harm to the public interest before the trial court analyzes the balancing of interests.⁶ The Supreme Court disagreed.⁷

Rather than imposing a rigid probability threshold, the Court clarified that the test is simply a balancing inquiry. To withhold a public record, a public entity must show: (1) a specific, material harm; (2) a real — not speculative — likelihood that the harm will occur; and (3) a causal link between disclosure and that harm.⁸ Vague or conclusory assertions will not suffice.⁹ The Court will assess the strength of all relevant factors to weigh the public interest in disclosure against the “best interests of the state.”¹⁰ The stronger these factors, the more likely non-disclosure will be justified — and vice versa. The Court also clarified that “best interests of the state” refers to the interests of the government and the public as a whole, not merely the narrow interests of the agency withholding the records.¹¹

Because the lower courts never actually reviewed all of the withheld records, the Supreme Court remanded for “in camera” review — where the judge will privately examine the documents in question before ruling.¹² For example, the Court noted that unchanged boilerplate language from prior public MOUs likely does not deserve protection under the best interests doctrine. And, the Court noted that any delay in disclosure must end once the justification for withholding (here, ongoing union negotiations) no longer exists.¹³

This case reinforces Arizona’s strong presumption of public access to government records. Going forward, public entities invoking the “best interests of the state” exception must now make particularized, non-speculative showings under the factor test and narrowly limit any delay in disclosure.