Case Summary and Outcome

The National Civil and Commercial Federal Court No. 5 of the City of Buenos Aires, Argentina, granted the precautionary measure requested by Karina Elizabeth Milei, Secretary General of the Presidency and sister of President Javier Milei, ordering the cessation of the dissemination of audio recordings attributed to her that were allegedly obtained unlawfully at the Presidential Office.  Milei argued that the publication of those audios—announced by a streaming channel and amplified by various journalists—could cause irreparable harm to her honor, reputation, and personal safety, as well as compromise government activity. However, the content of the recordings had not yet been verified. The Court acknowledged that the Constitution of Argentina and international treaties robustly protected freedom of expression and prohibited prior restraints, save in absolutely exceptional circumstances. After analyzing the requirements of “likelihood of success on the merits of the case” (fumus bonis iuris) and danger in delay (periculum in mora), it concluded that, in this case, dissemination of the recordings could cause harm that would be difficult to remedy later and affect constitutionally protected interests such as privacy, honor, and institutional security. Accordingly, it imposed a temporary and exceptional restriction limited exclusively to the contested recordings and ordered the National Communications Authority to notify the measure to all media outlets.

Facts

On August 29, 2025, Karina Elizabeth Milei filed a request before the National Civil and Commercial Federal Court No. 5 of the City of Buenos Aires, seeking the issuance of a precautionary measure under articles 198 and 232 of the National Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure. The petitioner requested that the Court order “the cessation of the dissemination of any chat, photo, audio, and video announced on 08/29/2025 as pertaining to her, through any written and/or audiovisual media and/or via social networks from any website, platform and/or web channel.” [p. 1]

Although the content of the impugned recordings had not been verified, they were reported following the dissemination of other audio recordings which revealed alleged evidence of a corruption scandal directly implicating President Milei’s sister.

Furthermore, the request asked the National Communications Authority (ENACOM) to notify the measure to all television, radio, print, and digital media outlets in order to ensure the prohibition of the materials’ reproduction and circulation. The applicant alleged that the dissemination of the content, announced by a streaming channel called “Carnaval”—and circulated by various journalists—, could cause irreparable harm to her honor and reputation, as well as affect national security and the functioning of the government of which she is a part.

Milei further argued that, if authentic, the recordings would have been illegally obtained inside the Presidential Office, amounting to an unprecedented event in the country’s history. She further noted that publication of the material would not only personally harm her, but also endanger her family and the public office she holds. Without recognizing the veracity of the attributed content or the manner in which the media may have obtained it, she requested that any reference to and dissemination of such audios and chats be prohibited.

Decision Overview

On September 1, 2025, Judge Patricio Maraniello of the National Civil and Commercial Federal Court No. 5 of the City of Buenos Aires had to decide whether to grant the precautionary measure requesting the cessation of the dissemination of audio files attributed to Karina Milei —allegedly obtained illegally inside the Presidential Office—considering the tension between the rights to privacy and honor of a high-ranking public official, on the one hand, and the constitutional right of freedom of expression, on the other. The actual content of the recordings had not yet been determined.

First, the Judge explained that articles 14, 32, and 75(22) of the National Constitution enshrine freedom of expression and incorporate international human rights provisions such as Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR). He further recalled that “freedom of expression encompasses not only the expression of ideas and opinions but also the dissemination of news through the written press and those conveyed by radio, television, and the internet.” [p. 4] At the same time, the Judge explained that the right to freedom of expression is not absolute and that limitations may be established when necessary to protect other fundamental rights such as privacy and national security.

Subsequently, the Judge examined the requirements to grant a precautionary measure: (1) fumus bonis iuris (likelihood of success on the merits of the case) and (2) periculum in mora (danger in delay). He noted that, regarding the first requirement, the issuance of a precautionary measure did not require a full and definitive analysis of the underlying conflict—only a reasonable probability that the invoked right is valid. With respect to the second requirement, the Judge held that a sense of urgency alone was insufficient to justify a precautionary measure; rather, it must be demonstrated that there is a serious, concrete, and imminent risk that the invoked right will be lost, impaired, or suffer irremediable harm.

The Judge then emphasized that, although restrictions on freedom of expression must be construed narrowly, the existence of a grave and irreparable risk may justify a more flexible assessment to grant precautionary measures. The Court stressed that freedom of expression “plays a predominant role in democratic life and, therefore, only yields in cases of manifest gravity.” [p. 5]

The Judge also explained that, as a general rule, a person’s decision to publish information cannot be subject to prior restraints. Moreover, he specified that only in absolutely exceptional cases could prior restraints be permitted. The Judge argued that the prohibition of prior censorship not only ensures individual expression without limitations but also safeguards society’s right to be informed and prevents external interferences from undermining this common good.

Next, the Judge stated that, according to the complaint, the audio files attributed to Karina Milei had allegedly been obtained illegally and clandestinely, possibly from the Presidential Office, and in the context of a private meeting. In light of this, he considered it necessary to weigh, on the one hand, the protection of press freedom and the prohibition of prior restraints, and on the other, the serious consequences that the dissemination of that material could generate in potential ongoing investigations.

Considering this, the Judge stated that “the failure to admit the requested precautionary measure could entail consequences more detrimental to society as a whole than the temporary restriction of information.” [p. 8] He further concluded that, in this case, freedom of expression had to yield in light of the risks that could arise from the dissemination of the recordings attributed to Karina Milei, before their content was known. To the Judge, the disclosure of that material could generate harm difficult or impossible to repair later on (danger in delay). Accordingly, he considered that the necessary conditions for granting the measure were satisfied.

At the same time, the Judge said that his decision did not validate prior censorship, as it constitutes only an exceptional and provisional restriction—limited exclusively to the audio files attributed to Karina Milei, allegedly obtained in the Presidential Office. He emphasized that the measure did not aim to limit public debate or the flow of information—essential to democracy—but was confined to a specific and exceptional case.

Thus, the Judge decided to grant the precautionary measure and ordered “the cessation of the dissemination solely of the audio files recorded in the Presidential Office of the Nation, announced on 08/29/2025 that are attributed to Ms. Karina Elizabeth Milei, through any written and/or audiovisual media and/or through social networks from any website, platform and/or web channel.” [p. 10] He also ordered ENACOM to notify the aforementioned restriction to all media outlets.