Case Summary and Outcome

The National Civil and Commercial Federal Court No. 5 of Buenos Aires, Argentina, lifted a precautionary measure that prohibited the dissemination of audio recordings allegedly involving Karina Elizabeth Milei, Secretary General of the Presidency and sister of President Javier Milei. On September 1, 2025, the Court granted Milei’s request for a precautionary measure to prevent the dissemination of recordings by the streaming channel “Carnaval,” which she claimed were obtained illegally from the Presidential Office and could harm her honor and compromise national security. The actual content of the recordings had not been verified at the time the ban was granted. Journalist Jorge Fontevecchia, represented by a team of constitutional lawyers (including Roberto Gargarella), appealed the order, arguing that it amounted to an unconstitutional prior restraint in violation of both the Constitution of Argentina and the American Convention on Human Rights. On September 15, 2025, Karina Milei herself requested the Court to lift the measure, stating that the dissemination of the files did not affect her privacy or national security, considering they were already circulated by foreign media outlets. The following day, Judge Alejandro Patricio Maraniello accepted the withdrawal and ruled that the original circumstances justifying the injunction had ended. He emphasized that precautionary measures under national procedural law can only remain in effect while their underlying conditions persist. As a result, the appeal filed by Fontevecchia was declared moot.

Facts

On August 29, 2025, Karina Elizabeth Milei—Secretary General of the Presidency of the Nation and sister of President Javier Milei—requested a precautionary measure before the National Civil and Commercial Federal Court No. 5 of the City of Buenos Aires, seeking an order to pevent the dissemination of “any chat, photo, audio, and video announced on 08/29/2025 as pertaining to her person, through any medium and/or social networks.” [p.1] The request also asked the National Communications Authority (ENACOM) to notify the measure to all television, radio, print, and digital media outlets. According to Milei, the disclosure—announced by the streaming channel “Carnaval”—could cause irreparable harm to her honor and reputation and compromise national security. Furthermore, she alleged that the audio recordings were obtained illegally from the Presidential Office.

On September 1, 2025, the National Civil and Commercial Federal Court No. 5 of Buenos Aires, Argentina (Judge Alejandro Patricio Maraniello), granted the precautionary measure prohibiting the dissemination of the recordings attributed to Milei. In its decision, he recalled the strong constitutional and Inter-American protection of freedom of expression (Arts. 14, 32 and 75(22) of the National Constitution; Art. 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR)) but held that, given the likelihood of success on the merits of the case (fumus bonis iuris) and the danger in delay (periculum in mora), an exceptional and provisional restriction could be justified to safeguard privacy, honor, and institutional security. He noted that freedom of expression yields only in cases of manifest gravity, and that the measure was limited to the specific case and did not endorse prior censorship.

On September 4, journalist Jorge Fontevecchia, chair of the board of NetTV S.A., represented by constitutional lawyers Sebastián Andrés Guidi, Roberto Gargarella, and Ricardo Gil Lavedra, appealed the decision that prohibited the dissemination of the censored audio files (see brief here).

Fontevecchia argued that the order was a prior restraint, which is expressly prohibited by Article 14 of the National Constitution and Article 13 of the ACHR. He explained that freedom of expression, as enshrined in these instruments, cannot be subjected to preventive restrictions—except in exceptional cases not applicable here. He cited the Inter-American Court of Human Rights case The Last Temptation of Christ, which concluded that any prior restraint justified outside the scope of the enumerated exceptions exhaustively mentioned in the ACHR undermined freedom of thought and expression.

Moreover, Fontevecchia argued that the order disregarded the special protection afforded to speech concerning public officials and matters of public interest. He cited the Denegri case (Supreme Court of Argentina), which establishes that freedom of expression enjoys heightened protection when publications concern public officials, public figures, or issues of public interest. According to Fontevecchia, such protection is essential to ensure the broad and open debate that sustains the republican system.

Fontevecchia also criticized the order for its vagueness, noting that it did not clearly identify the audio files whose dissemination was prohibited, nor set a temporal limit for the restriction. This, he argued, created uncertainty for media outlets, which couldn’t determine what materials were covered by the ban.

Furthermore, Fontevecchia contended that the order failed to demonstrate the likelihood of success on the merits of the case (fumus bonis iuris) asserted by Ms. Milei, since neither she nor the judge knew the content of the audio files at issue. According to the journalist, it was impossible to assert whether the files were unlawful without knowing their content or the manner in which they were obtained.

In addition, Fontevecchia stated that the order did not concretely identify the irreparable harm the precautionary measure sought to avoid. He argued that the risks mentioned—such as harm to honor, privacy, or institutional security—were speculative and lacked evidentiary support.

The journalist also argued that the order violated the fundamental right to freedom of expression, protected by the National Constitution and international treaties with constitutional rank. Fontevecchia argued that prohibiting the dissemination of the audio files prevented public debate on matters of public interest—which is essential in a democracy. He cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s “Pentagon Papers” case (New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 [1971]), which emphasized that vague terms such as “security” should not be used to restrict fundamental rights.

Fontevecchia warned that maintaining the order could entail international responsibility for the country before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Thus, he requested the order to be revoked.

On September 15, 2025, Karina Milei filed a brief before the National Civil and Commercial Federal Court No. 5 requesting the lifting of the previously issued precautionary measure. She argued that the audio recordings in question did not affect national security and asked that the action be set aside and the proceedings closed. While she maintained that the motion filed by Fontevecchia lacked merit, she clarified that she was voluntarily withdrawing the measure. In her submission, Karina Milei emphasized that the precautionary measure was not a prior restraint, but a restriction to halt the dissemination of illegally obtained recordings, manipulated and edited to orchestrate a political operation against her and her family. She also argued that the recordings had already been disseminated by foreign media outlets without affecting her safety, the rights of third parties, or national security.

Decision Overview

On September 16, 2025, the National Civil and Commercial Federal Court No. 5 of the City of Buenos Aires issued a decision on the matter. The Judge had to assess whether the withdrawal requested by Karina Milei, and the new set of circumstances presented by her, justified lifting the initial order granting a precautionary measure ordering a ban on the dissemination of audio files regarding the Secretary General of the Presidency.

Jorge Fontevecchia argued that the precautionary measure was a form of prior censorship, prohibited by the Constitution and by international human rights treaties, and that it directly affected press freedom and the public’s right to be informed. For her part, Karina Milei requested the lifting of the precautionary measure, contending that the recordings did not compromise her privacy or national security, that the ongoing criminal investigation was the proper forum to analyze the alleged facts, and that the continuation of this action could even hinder that investigation. She therefore expressly requested the withdrawal of the measure she had obtained.

Judge Maraniello began by clarifying that any precautionary measure, under Article 198 of the National Civil and Procedural Code, should subsist as long as the circumstances that gave rise to it persist, and may be lifted when those circumstances end.

Subsequently, the Judge held that, in this case, the circumstances that justified the measure changed since the plaintiff herself decided to withdraw the action, arguing that: (i) the National Government filed a criminal complaint with strong arguments to request an investigation; (ii) the continuation of this case could affect that criminal investigation; and (iii) the audio files had already been reproduced by foreign media, which reinforced the loss of purpose of the anticipated protection. On this basis, the Judge ordered the lifting of the precautionary measure.

Finally, as a consequence of lifting the injunction and Karina Milei’s withdrawal of the action, the judge declared Jorge Fontevecchia’s appeal moot and without purpose.