Free Speech Rights: Anti-SLAPP Laws Of The U.S. Ranked By Quality

Forbes

27-03-2025

Anti-SLAPP laws suppress the censorship of free expression through lawfare.
Anti-SLAPP laws are statutes that provide a substantive right of a person to an early dismissal of causes of action brought against them with the effect of silencing or punishing their First Amendment (and corresponding state constitutional) rights to freedom of speech and to petition. The idea ― which has been proven to be very successful ― is to prevent a plaintiff from using the heavy monetary and emotional expense of litigation to grind down a defendant, even if the plaintiff's lawsuit is ultimately shown to be meritless. Anti-SLAPP laws accomplish this by, basically, moving the summary judgment motion from the end of a case to the start of the case and imposing a stay of the litigation until the Anti-SLAPP motion is resolved by the court.
Which U.S. jurisdiction has the best Anti-SLAPP laws? This article rates the Anti-SLAPP laws of the U.S. states and territories. There were many factors considered, but the primary considerations went to scope (breadth of protection), the availability of an automatic stay of the litigation or at least of discovery, the availability of a mandatory appeal of right to an unsuccessful movant, the awarding of attorneys fees and costs, and whether the statute contains a uniformity of interpretation provision to deter forum shopping. An ancillary purpose of this article is to let state legislatures know where their Anti-SLAPP statutes are deficient (or that they do not have one at all) so that these problems may be remedied.
Because the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act ("UPEPA") uniquely satisfies all of the requirements, the states that have adopted the UPEPA are automatically granted an "A" rating. The states that have very good organic Anti-SLAPP laws, but do not have the benefit of the UPEPA's uniformity provision fall into the "B" category. States with workable but flawed Anti-SLAPP statutes get a "C" while the states with mostly useless statutes get a "D". The states with no Anti-SLAPP law at all of course merit an "F".
So here we go:
Quality Anti-SLAPP statute, including provision for uniformity of interpretation to prevent forum-shopping and enhance quality of court opinions.
Quality Anti-SLAPP statute, but without provision for uniformity of interpretation.
Average Anti-SLAPP statute, but restricted in scope and/or lacking important protective provisions.
Poor Anti-SLAPP statute, significantly restricted in scope and without most important protective provisions.
No Anti-SLAPP statute. The legislatures of these states (and Puerto Rico) are asleep at the switch.
Well, that's it. As Anti-SLAPP laws do not change very often, I doubt that this will be anything like an annual list. Still, it may be interesting to look back in several years to see where these gaps in Anti-SLAPP law have finally been filled.
Or not.