Rep. Ruben Gallego (D., Ariz.) attends a press conference on June 30, 2020, on Capitol Hill (Getty Images)
The Arizona Court of Appeals on Thursday ruled in favor of the Washington Free Beacon, upholding a Superior Court decision that ordered the partial unsealing of Democratic Senate candidate Ruben Gallego’s divorce records.
"Upon review, we hold the court properly exercised its discretion by narrowly tailoring what is to be withheld from public view for those legitimate purposes," the Court of Appeals wrote in its decision.
For nearly 10 months, the Gallegos have fought to shield the records—treated as public documents for the average Arizona citizen—from public view.
Gallego, who is running against Republican Kari Lake for Arizona’s open Senate seat, filed for divorce in Yavapai County when his wife, Kate Gallego, was nine months pregnant. Neither party lived in the county at the time, though Arizona law stipulates that citizens must file for divorce in the county in which they reside, and the pair succeeded in convincing a judge to conceal even the case’s existence on the docket.
Three years after filing for divorce, and two years after the divorce was finalized, Gallego tied the knot with his second wife, lobbyist Sydney Barron, in a private ceremony in 2019. Months later, he posted pictures that purported to show his proposal to her and announced their engagement, though the two were already married. "She said yes!! Thank you Sydney for being my forever!" Gallego wrote of his wife. The couple had a public wedding in 2021.
Superior Court judge John Napper ruled in July that the move was improper, and ordered the unsealing of the case with limited redactions, including for personally identifiable information. The Gallegos sought the intervention of an appellate court, which has now ruled against them. Absent the intervention of the Arizona Supreme Court, the file, with limited redactions, will become public on Oct. 17.
"The Gallegos had the burden to show continuing or new overriding circumstances to prohibit access to court documents or any portions thereof. They did not meet that burden," the Court of Appeals wrote Thursday. "Given the applicable standard of review and the presumption that the court implicitly found all facts necessary to support its decision, we discern no error."
