Arizona Supreme Court rejects Kari Lake's appeal in defamation case, lifts temporary stay

The Arizona Supreme Court said Tuesday it would lift a temporary stay in a defamation lawsuit against former gubernatorial and current U.S. Senate candidate Kari Lake filed by the Maricopa County recorder.

The court chose to reject Lake's appeal challenging Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Jay Adleman's December decision to allow the suit to go forward. The news comes after the Arizona Court of Appeals also said it would not consider a special action petition from Lake challenging Adleman's ruling.

That means the lawsuit will now continue to discovery, the formal process of exchanging information between attorneys about witnesses and evidence that could be presented before a jury at trial.

The initial lawsuit, filed in June by Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer, accuses Lake and her affiliates of spreading false information about Richer after the November 2022 election. He alleges Lake knew, or should have known, the statements were false. Lake and Richer are both Republicans.

"Words matter," Richer said. "None of this was ever true. And broadcasting to millions of people that I did some very specific, very unlawful, very destructive things has consequences. That's why we did this and we're happy that we're one step closer to getting relief for that."

But Lake says Richer, who is running for reelection, is seeking to silence her and other election integrity critics. She has repeatedly condemned his defamation suit against her.

What does the case mean for Arizona's anti-SLAPP law?

Lake and her attorneys initially filed two motions to dismiss the case. One was filed under Arizona's anti-SLAPP law, originally passed in 2006 and revised last year.

SLAPP stands for "strategic lawsuit against public participation," a meritless lawsuit brought to silence or intimidate someone who is speaking about a matter of public concern. In Arizona, the law allows for expedited dismissal of a lawsuit if it arises from a desire to deter the exercise of the rights of free speech and petition.

Lake's attorneys argued in court that Richer intended to chill Lake's speech by bringing a defamation lawsuit against her.

Richer's legal team maintained his suit is a clear-cut defamation case. His attorneys said in a rebuttal to Lake's Supreme Court appeal that the case is "a poor vehicle" for the courts to administer guidance on the newly revamped law.

Adleman was one of the first Arizona judges to issue a ruling on a motion to dismiss under the revised statute, but his discussion of the law was relatively brief. He wrote Richer laid out "a factual and legal basis" for a defamation case and that there was no evidence Richer brought the case improperly.

Gregg Leslie, executive director of Arizona State University's First Amendment Clinic and one of Lake's attorneys in the suit, said that ruling now stands alone since neither of the appellate courts released written opinions on the case.

"They didn't say anything, so it's really just the trial judge's opinion that is the controlling law, and that usually isn't as influential with other trial courts," Leslie said. "To the extent that they would look at this one, I think our argument is still valid that the normal procedure was not followed, so in a sense it doesn't give any instruction for how to do this in the future."

Ben Berwick, counsel at Protect Democracy and one of Richer's attorneys for the lawsuit, said the decision could leave the new anti-SLAPP law open to interpretation as other cases come along to test it.

"This is a relatively easy case," Berwick said. "I can't speak for the Arizona Supreme Court, but they clearly did not see this as a case that raised tough questions under the anti-SLAPP statute that they needed to answer at this stage in litigation."

What's next for the lawsuit?

In coming weeks, attorneys for Richer and Lake will meet to hash out deadlines and set a schedule for the case.

Then, they'll move into discovery. Berwick said he expects that to be "a reasonably lengthy process" that could take "several months."

The case could go to trial during a contentious election year in which both Richer and Lake will be running for elected offices, or immediately after in 2025.

Sasha Hupka covers county government and elections for The Arizona Republic. Do you have a tip? Reach her at sasha.hupka@arizonarepublic.com. Follow her on X, formerly Twitter: @SashaHupka. Follow her on Instagram or Threads: @sashahupkasnaps.

This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Ariz. Supreme Court lifts stay in defamation lawsuit against Kari Lake