A federal judge is deliberating whether to bar two Arkansas news outlets from publishing details of a multimillion-dollar agreement involving a West Memphis data center project. The case raises significant First Amendment concerns, according to advocates.
U.S. District Judge Lee Rudofsky heard three and a half hours of arguments Tuesday on Entergy Arkansas’ request to prevent the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and Arkansas Times from reporting confidential information about its contract with Altitude Capital LLC, a Google subsidiary developing the data center. While Rudofsky expressed initial skepticism about Entergy's request, he indicated the company presented a strong case but noted the First Amendment weighs heavily in his decision. No immediate ruling was made.
The dispute centers on documents obtained through a recent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that were cited in a Democrat-Gazette article. The documents, which Entergy says were mistakenly released, reveal Google plans to contribute $526 million toward building a solar facility, Cypress Solar, that is part of the estimated $1.6 billion project. The solar plant will power the center’s operations.
Jessica Kivell, a central Arkansas resident, reportedly submitted the FOIA request that produced the records. Entergy contends the release violated laws protecting trade secrets and has called the information incomplete and proprietary.
“We protect all customer information—whether for a household, a local manufacturer, or a global company,” said Entergy Arkansas spokesperson Lamor Williams in a written statement. Williams added that Google is paying its full cost of service and covering grid upgrades needed for the West Memphis project.
Lee Wolverton, executive editor of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, defended the publication’s decision to report the story. “We stand here for the public, to see if we can make all information relevant to the public about an issue of extreme public interest available. That’s what we’re here to do, that’s our mission,” Wolverton said.
Entergy is also seeking a court order for the removal of published details it deems confidential. Such a measure—known as prior restraint—has faced sharp criticism from press freedom groups, which argue it would violate longstanding legal precedents protecting speech and journalism.
“This isn’t the first time somebody has attempted to enjoin publication of inadvertently released documents, and it’s very clearly unconstitutional,” said Seth Stern, advocacy chief for the Freedom of the Press Foundation. He likened the case to prior restraint battles in the 1971 Pentagon Papers decision and noted that blocking publication is permissible only under the rarest circumstances, such as a direct, imminent threat to public safety.
Adam Steinbaugh, an attorney with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, called Entergy’s legal action unusual. “If the government releases information, whether that’s intentional or on accident, you can’t put that genie back in the bottle,” Steinbaugh said. “Their complaint should be with the government for releasing it, not with a newspaper for publishing it.”
Lisa Zycherman of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press also warned about the implications. “A prior restraint threatens press freedom and the public’s right to the free flow of information,” she said.
The case comes amid broader debates in Arkansas and nationwide over data centers, which have drawn bipartisan opposition over their energy demands and perceived lack of transparency. Rudofsky, a Trump appointee to the bench, noted Entergy’s arguments in favor of intellectual property protections but said any order he issues must consider the constitutional barriers to limiting the press.