Connect with us

arizona

Arizona Supreme Court Rejects Gallegos’ Effort to Seal Divorce Records

Published

on

Arizona’s top court denies Gallegos’ move to keep divorce records sealed

The Arizona Supreme Court has rejected a plea from Congressman Ruben Gallego and Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego to extend a stay on the release of their divorce records. This decision follows a legal battle with the Washington Free Beacon, an out-of-state conservative news outlet, which had sought to unseal the records since January.

The current stay is set to lapse on Thursday, compelling the Gallegos to respond swiftly. The couple, who share political affiliations as Democrats, contend that the Beacon’s motives are politically charged. As both are candidates in the upcoming November elections—Ruben for a U.S. Senate seat and Kate for re-election as mayor—they seek to shield their private lives from scrutiny.

Their attorney, Daniel Arellano, argued in a court motion, “The privacy and safety interests of the Gallegos’ minor child continue to justify sealing any reference to him in the record.” He pointed to unrebutted evidence showing threats faced by the family.

The Beacon, in an opinion column, stated that it chose to file the lawsuit based on Gallego’s public discussions about his divorce, asserting a public necessity for transparency. On Wednesday, the outlet requested the high court deny the Gallegos’ stay request and allow the records to be accessible, with minimal redactions.

Michael Edney, representing the Beacon, emphasized the public’s right to access court documents, stating, “Congressman Gallego is not entitled to special privileges to secrecy.” He underscored that the public and press have a heightened interest in matters involving public officials.

Ruben and Kate married in 2010, with Ruben assuming office in the U.S. Congress in 2014. Their divorce proceedings began in December 2016, shortly before the birth of their son in early 2017. Although sealing divorce records is uncommon in Arizona, the Yavapai County Superior Court granted the Gallegos’ request in 2016, deciding that their privacy outweighed the standard open records policy.

Following the Beacon’s lawsuit, the Gallegos proposed releasing a redacted version of their divorce records. The court accepted some but not all of those proposed redactions. This led to their appeal to the Arizona Court of Appeals, which upheld the lower court’s decision recently.

Arellano expressed concerns over the potential unsealing of records, emphasizing that extensive references to their minor child exist within those documents. He cautioned that revealing details about their co-parenting would expose the family to risk, stating, “the damage they are seeking to avoid will already be done if the records are unsealed.”

He further noted that once the records are public, the information becomes irreversible. The Gallegos argue that their right to privacy does not diminish due to their elected status. Arellano maintained that the balance of hardships favors the Gallegos, emphasizing that the Beacon would not suffer harm from a delayed release.

On behalf of the Beacon, Edney countered that the Gallegos had not sufficiently demonstrated specific harms from unsealing their records. He highlighted the repercussions for journalists and voters if the records remain sealed, arguing, “the press will be permanently deprived of their ability to inform voters.”

Ultimately, the court found that the Gallegos failed to show a strong likelihood of success in their case or articulate the specific harms they would face if the records were made public.

Ruben Gallego has previously indicated that his experiences as a Marine, including PTSD, contributed to tension in his marriage and subsequent divorce. His political opponent, Kari Lake, has leveraged the divorce issues for campaign criticism, often asserting that Arizona voters deserve to know more about him.

With early voting in Arizona having commenced on October 9, this legal matter remains at the forefront of local political discourse.

***UPDATE: This story has been updated to reflect the Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling and additional information from the Washington Free Beacon’s motion.