Anti-SLAPP Statutes in the US by State

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) refer to suits brought in response to efforts by individuals or groups to participate in the democratic process by some person or entity that claims to have been wronged through that participation. A common type of SLAPP suit is a defamation action. 2 Law of Defamation § 9:107 (2d. Ed.). These SLAPP laws often have a chilling effect on the grass-roots exercise of First Amendment Rights. Id.

Because of the effect these suits can have on citizens petitioning the government for redress of grievances, numerous states have enacted some form of anti-SLAPP legislation. California in particular has been the leader in litigation interpreting and applying SLAPP legislation. Id. Below is a list of States that have enacted some type of anti-SLAPP law or have bills pending.

States with Anti-SLAPP Legislation: (in alphabetical order)

Arizona: The Public Participation in Government was signed into law April 28, 2006. ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 12-751 - 12-752 (2009).

Arkansas: The Citizen Participation in Government Act was signed into law April 11, 2005. ARK. CODE ANN. §§ 16-63-501 - 16-63-508 (2009)

California: California's Claim Arising from Person's Exercise of Constitutional Right of Petition or Free Speech – Special Motion to Strike law was enacted in 1993. ANN.CAL.C.C.P. §425.16.

Delaware: Delaware enacted the Actions involving Public Petition and Participation, Standards for Motion to Dismiss and Summary Judgment in Certain Cases Involving Public Petition and Participation and Recovery of Damages in Actions Involving Public Petition and Participation. DEL. CODE. ANN. tit. 10 §§ 8136-8138 (2009).

Florida: FLA. STAT. §§ 768.295, 720.304(4)

Georgia: Exercise of rights of freedom of speech and right to petition government for redress of grievances; legislative findings; verification of claims; definitions; procedure on motions; exception GA. CODE ANN § 9-11-11.1 (2008)

Hawaii: HAW. Rev. Stat Vol. 13 §§634F-1 – 634F-4 (2002)

Illinois: 735 ILL. COMP. STAT. 110/1, 110/5, 110/10, 110/15, 110/20, 110/25, 110/30, 110/35, 110/99 (2008).

Indiana: Chapter 7. Defense in Civil Actions Against Persons Who Act in Furtherance of the Person's Right of Petition or Free Speech Under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana in Connection with a Public Issue. IND CODE §§ 34-7-7-1 – 34-7-7-10 (2008).

Louisiana: Special Motion to Strike. LA. CODE CIV. PROC. ANN. art. 971 (2008)

Maine: Special Motion to Dismiss. ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 14 § 556 (2008).

Maryland: Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. MD. CODE ANN. § 5-807 (2008).

Massachusetts: Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation: Special Motion To Dismiss. MASS. GEN. LAWS. ANN. ch. 231 § 59H (2008).

Minnesota: Declaratory, Corrective, Administrative Remedies. Free Speech; Participation in Government. MINN. STAT. §§ 554.01 – 554.05 (2008).

Missouri: 537.528. Actions for damages for conduct or speech at public hearings and meetings to be considered on expedited basis-procedural issues. MO. REV. STAT. § 537-528.1-7 (2008).

Nebraska: NEB. REV. STAT. §§ 25-21,241- 25-21,246 (2008).

Nevada: Nevada's anti-SLAPP statute was enacted in 1993 and amended in 1997. NEV. REV. STAT. §§ 41.635 – 41.670 (2008).

New Mexico: New Mexico's anti-SLAPP law was enacted in April of 2001. N.M. STAT. ANN. §§ 38-2-9.1 – 38-2-9.2 (2008).

New York: N.Y. CIV. RIGHTS 70-a; 76-a (2008); N.Y. C.P.L.R 3211(g); 3212(h) (2009)

Oklahoma: Privileged Communications defined –Exemption from Libel. OKLA. STAT. tit. 12, chap. 25 § 1443.1 (2008)

Oregon: OR. REV. STAT. §§ 31.150 – 31.155 (2008).

Pennsylvania: 27 PA. CONS. STAT §§ 7707 – 7708 (2008); 27 PA. CONS. STAT §§ 8301 – 8305 (2008).

Rhode Island: R.I. GEN. LAWS §§ 9-33-1 – 9-33-4 (2008); R.I. GEN. LAWS § 45-24-67 (2008);

Tennessee: TENN. CODE. ANN. §§ 4-21-1001 – 4-21-1004 (2009).

Utah: UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 78B-6-1401 – 78B-6-1405 (2008)

Washington: Good faith communication to government agency-When agency or attorney general may defend against lawsuit- Costs and fees. WASH. REV. CODE § 4.24.520 (2008).

States with Judicial Doctrine on SLAPPs (No Statute)

West Virginia: There was no evidence of anti-SLAPP bills, but there have been several cases. Webb v. Fury ( 282 S.E.2d 28); Harris v. Adkins (432 S.E.2d 549)

States with Anti-SLAPP Bills (Current or Previous)

Colorado: Colorado's Sixty-third General Assembly's House Bill 02-1192 was introduced in 2002. The bill was read three times, with the third reading effectively stalling the bill.

Connecticut: Connecticut's 1991 Raised Bill 7374 and 1993 House Bill 1026, Senate Bill 182, and Senate Bill 248 all failed.

Kansas: Kansas' 1997 Senate Bill No. 287 was pulled by Senator Clark in March of 1998 because the proposed amendments by the state bar association would have made the bill essentially non-effective.

Michigan: Senate Bill 1195 was introduced in May of 2004. House Bill 4709 was introduced in April 29, 1997 and referred to the Consumer Protection Committee, where a substitute bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee. However, the bill was never taken up by the Judiciary Committee.

New Hampshire: Senate Bill 661 was introduced in 1994. The state senate then requested the state supreme court's opinion whether the bill was consistent with the state constitution. The court responded that it was not. Opinion of the Justices (SLAPP Suit Procedure)(641 A.2d 1012)

New Jersey: New Jersey does not have an anti-SLAP statute, although there were bills introduced in 1998 (Senate Bill No. 745) and in 1996 (Assembly Bill 1545). However, the New Jersey Courts have been sympathetic to those impacted by SLAPPs. As a result, the courts have allowed a defendant who successfully defeats a SLAPP-type suit to seek damages from the SLAPP filer on a claim of malicious use of process.

Texas: Texas has had numerous attempts at passing some type of anti-SLAPP laws. House Bill 1319 passed in the House of Representative, but not the Senate. Another bill passed the House State Affairs Committee, but died for lack of action because there were so many other bills pending at the end of the regular session.

In 1999, House Bill 2488 also failed in the Senate. In 2001 the same bill was reintroduced, but was not reported out of the House Civil Practices Committee. Another anti-SLAPP bill, House Bill 2723 did pass, but was vetoed by the governor on June 17, 2001.

House Bill 2267 was introduced in March 2003. Although the bill was passed out of the House Civil Practices Committee, but did not make it further.

House Bill 329 was cancelled in 2005 by Representative Joe Nixon.

Virginia: Virginia's Senate Bill 424 from 1992 and 1993 failed.

Note: No information on North Carolina was located.

Related Topics: Lawfare in the United States receive the latest by email: subscribe to the legal project's free mailing list This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.