Idaho Senate widely passes anti-SLAPP bill that aims to curtail frivolous lawsuits
Idaho Lt. Gov. Scott Bedke, R-Oakley, (left) and state lawmakers take a break from legislative proceedings on the Idaho Senate floor on Jan. 7, 2025. (Pat Sutphin for the Idaho Capital Sun)
The Idaho Senate on Monday widely passed a bill intended to protect free speech by curtailing frivolous lawsuits.
Sen. Brian Lenney, R-Nampa, has described the bill as an anti-SLAPP measure, targeting what are known as strategic lawsuits against public participation.
The bill — Senate Bill 1001 — would put lawsuits on hold if a party files an anti-SLAPP motion. The bill would let the winning party recover attorney fees.
Idaho is one of 15 states without anti-SLAPP protections, Lenney said in the state Senate on Monday.
'These are lawsuits that happen all over the United States that can take years to defend. And they can cost tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of dollars in legal fees for the defendant,' Lenney said. 'Because the type of lawsuits this bill deals with are not designed to win. They're designed to intimidate, to distract, to bankrupt or to punish a person for exercising free speech.'
Anti-SLAPP laws are in place in 35 states and the District of Columbia, according to a 2023 report by the Institute for Free Speech.
The Idaho Senate passed the bill on a 32-1 vote. Two Idaho state senators — Sens. Codi Galloway, R-Boise, and Ali Rabe, D-Boise, — were absent for the vote.
Idaho Senate President Pro Tempore Kelly Anthon, R-Rupert, was the only senator to vote against the bill. Anthon said he agreed with Lenney's goal, but Anthon said he had a slightly different approach — through civil procedure rules.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The bill now heads to the Idaho House, where it could be considered by a committee before a possible vote by the full House, where Idaho Rep. Heather Scott, R-Blanchard, is listed as a co-sponsor.
To become law, bills must pass the Idaho House and Senate and avoid the governor's veto.
If passed, the bill would take effect on Jan. 1, 2026. The bill says it would apply to civil actions or causes of actions filed that day and later.
Last year, Lenney sponsored a similar bill, Senate Bill 1325, which failed to pass the Idaho Senate on a 15-20 vote. Members of both major political parties voted against last year's bill after concerns over its legality were expressed.
The bill gives courts a 'comprehensive, efficient framework' so they can 'quickly resolve sham lawsuits,' Lenney said in Senate floor debate on Monday. The bill has wide, diverse political support, he said.
'The judge still has discretion to be a judge. Decisions can still be appealed. This doesn't take away anything from the courts,' Lenney said. 'It just gives them, like I said, an additional mechanism. Nor does this bill give anyone a hall pass to engage in defamation, slander, things like that.'
The bill would give courts an earlier chance to determine whether lawsuits should advance, said Sen. James Ruchti, D-Pocatello, who serves as assistant minority leader.
'It is designed for cases where it's not the outcome of the trial that everyone is interested, or that the person who brought the lawsuit is interested in,' he said. 'It's the lawsuit itself. It's the cost of litigation. It's the notoriety. It's the pressure. It's an effort to use lawsuits against somebody to get them to change their behavior, rather than the outcome of the lawsuit.'
Without the bill, Ruchti, an attorney, said the first opportunity for that is usually within six months of the lawsuit's filing, if a motion to dismiss is filed. The second opportunity, he said, could happen if a motion for summary judgement is filed.
'That's where the court would say, 'Yep, there is law that supports your claim. But even if the facts are as you say, no reasonable juror could determine that you prevail, and so we're going to dismiss the lawsuit,'' he said.
'But that is done rarely. And when the court determines whether reasonable jurors could find in your favor, they take that very seriously,' Ruchti continued. 'In other words, the tendency, the trend, is always to allow — except in rare cases — the case to go to trial. Because you deserve your day in court.'
Sen. Todd Lakey, R-Nampa, also an attorney, said he believes the bill protects the integrity of the judiciary and legal system.
'People need to be confident that they're getting an independent and unbiased review, and that the legal system is not being used to the advantage of some parties that may have the resources' to do that, he said.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Stymied French politicians turn to the sins of the past
On Thursday, two years after France's controversial retirement age increase, the National Assembly voted to withdraw the reform. While the news was politically explosive because the far-right National Rally helped the left-wing opposition gain a majority in the vote, the decision hasn't yielded any actual legal results. The situation reflects the country's ongoing failure to address structural reforms since the parliamentary elections last summer, which left the government won without an absolute majority. But in the area of remembrance policy there has been significant movement. In the same week as the toothless retirement resolution, parliamentarians adopted three texts that reclassify historical events or offer the prospect of reparations. On June 2, the French parliament voted unanimously to posthumously appoint Alfred Dreyfus to the rank of brigadier general. The Jewish officer was wrongly accused of high treason in 1894, based on falsified evidence that he revealed military secrets to the German embassy in Paris. Dreyfus subsequently spent four years in the notorious Devil's Island penal colony off the coast of French Guiana. The Franco-German dimension of the case had explosive foreign policy implications even then. The suspect's Jewish origins and his family background in the Alsace-Lorraine region, which came under German rule after the Franco-Prussian War, and strained relations with Germany, made him an ideal target for the nationalist mistrust many French people harbored at the time. Writer Émile Zola famously sided with Dreyfus in his essay "J'accuse…!", which played a critical role in the officer's exoneration and military rehabilitation in 1906. Nevertheless, after serving in the First World War as a lieutenant colonel, Dreyfus was only reinstated at a lower rank. This posthumous promotion for Dreyfus still has to pass the Senate. Alsatian MP Charles Sitzenstuhl, a member of French President Emmanuel Macron's center-right Renaissance Party, who introduced the initiative, offered a link to the present as a warning: "The anti-Semitism that plagued Alfred Dreyfus is not a thing of the distant past," he said. Just one day after the Dreyfus vote, the National Assembly also passed a law to recognize and compensate former returnees from French Indochina after the colonial rule of territories including Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia ended in 1954. Around 44,000 people were repatriated to France, among them colonial officials, soldiers and their families, the descendants of French colonizers and local women, as well as local collaborators. Between 4,000 to 6,000 returnees ended up in temporary camps, which were often outfitted with wooden barracks that lacked heating and plumbing. Returnees were also subject to degrading policies that included bans on going out and owning cars or other luxury goods. The new law introduced by the left-wing Socialist Party now provides for financial support based on someone's length of stay in the camps. It is estimated that up to 1,600 people could claim compensation. On June 5, the Assembly adopted a resolution addressing a "double debt" to Haiti that goes back to 1825. That was the year that France forced Haiti, which had declared independence in 1804, to pay compensation of 150 million gold francs. This was intended as a recognition of independence that would also compensate for the loss of French colonial possessions, including income from slaves. Haiti was forced to settle this "independence debt" over decades — a considerable economic burden that contributed to long-term poverty and instability on the island. The resolution, initiated by the Communist Party, calls for recognition, repayment and reparations for Haiti. But the text does not include concrete political steps or financial agreements. Nevertheless, the far-right National Rally voted against it. Remembrance politics have some tradition in France. In 2001, the "Taubira" law, named after the parliamentarian who introduced it, recognized the slave trade and practice of slavery as crimes against humanity. The topic has been a part of school curricula in France ever since. In October 2006, the National Assembly passed a bill to criminalize the denial of the Armenian genocide of 1915 in the Ottoman Empire with a year in prison or fine of €45,000 ($51,300). The bill never came into force after it failed to pass in the Senate, and was followed by a similarly doomed initiative introduced under President Nicolas Sarkozy. That draft law passed both chambers of parliament, but was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Council in February 2012, which said that it amounted to unlawful interference with freedom of expression and research. Another example is the treatment of the so-called "Senegalese riflemen," the colonial soldiers from Africa who fought for France in the two world wars. For decades, many received significantly lower pensions than their French comrades, especially if they lived outside of France after decolonization. It was not until 2009 that President Sarkozy decreed an equalization of pension benefits, a step that held great symbolic significance. The latest spike in such initiatives has been met with mixed interpretations by political scientists. Some experts see the willingness to take historical responsibility as a form of social maturity. But others point out that in a politically paralyzed legislature, symbolic initiatives are easier to pass than structural reforms in areas such as pensions, education or the budget. This article was originally written in German.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Civics in the time of MAGA: Junior high kids get right what we adults have gotten wrong
So, I'm sitting here on a Thursday afternoon, watching a bunch of junior-high-school kids answering questions about American government and constitutional rights. And the sad irony is they know more about it than at least 90% of the politicians and elected officials I cover on a daily basis. It's called the National Civics Bee. It's like a spelling bee, but with civics. And Thursday was the state finals, held at the downtown Wichita headquarters of the Kansas Leadership Center. What made this a lot more fun than the usual 'bee' format was it was set up to allow for audience participation. Attendees (in a separate group) could play along with the competitors and test their own knowledge. I talked with Chris Green of the Leadership Center and we both agreed it would be fun to invite some of our elected officials next year to see see how they stack up against the sixth-, seventh- and eighth graders in the contest. I wonder how many would accept the challenge. The questions ranged from fairly easy, like . . . Q: A new education reform bill was introduced in Congress and successfully passed through both the House of Representatives and the Senate. What is the next step before the bill can become law? A: The president must sign the bill into law or take no action for 10 days, after which it will automatically become law. . . . to the detailed and difficult, for example. . . Q: In Federalist number 39, how does Madison distinguish between a federal and national government, and what does this distinction suggest about the nature of the Constitution as a product of the convention? A: Madison claims that the Constitution is both federal and national, with the House of Representatives representing the national and the Senate representing the federal, suggesting that the constitution will balance power between the state and national. (I got that one wrong. I picked the answer with the House representing the federal and Senate national). In addition to the multiple choice, the five finalists had to read from and answer judges' questions on an essay they wrote on a current issue, ranging from saving rural hospitals to reforming state policy on driver's license revocation. When all was said and done, Tanya Ramesh of Wichita won the competition, a $1,000 giant check, and a ticket to Washington for the national finals. Madeline Stewart of Overland Park took second and $500, while Zane Hoff of Salina got third and $250. I thought the Civics Bee was one of the coolest events I've been to in a while, so I hesitate to even bring this up, but some of the questions probably need updating in this era of MAGA. For instance: Q: How did Afroyim versus Rusk in 1967 affect the government's power regarding citizenship revocation? A: It limited the government's ability to to revoke citizenship. Afroyim v. Rusk was a landmark case that ruled: 'Congress has no power under the Constitution to divest a person of his United States citizenship absent his voluntary renunciation thereof. ' The court's revised that stance since, to allow citizenship to be revoked (called denaturalization) if it was granted on false pretenses that would have prevented it in the first place, for example, terrorists or Nazi war criminals living under false identities. Now, denaturalization has become a key part of President Donald Trump's ongoing efforts to deport as many non-white immigrants as possible, whom he accuses (echoing a former world leader named Adolf) of 'poisoning the blood of our country.' During his first term, Trump created 'Operation Second Look,' a program to comb immigrant citizens' paperwork for misstatements or errors that would allow them to be denaturalized. This term, his top immigration advisor, Stephen Miller, has vowed to 'turbocharge' Operation Second Look, which could also lead to denaturalization and deportation of American-born children of immigrants, under Trump's executive order that purports to end birthright citizenship. Another Civics Bee question that caught my attention was this one: Q: Which statement best reflects the application of federalism in the Clean Air Act, considering the following quotation, 'the Clean Air Act represents a partnership between federal and state governments to improve air quality and to protect public health.' A: The federal government sets national standards, while states can implement stricter regulations based on local needs. That's the way it's supposed to work. But it brought to mind a recent press release I got from Kansas 1st District Rep. Tracey Mann, taking a victory lap over Congress rolling back California anti-pollution regulations. At the time, I remember thinking, 'What business is this of Tracey Mann's?' given that he represents a district that sprawls from Colorado to one county away from Missouri, where there are about four times as many cows as people and the largest city, Lawrence, would be a minor suburb of Los Angeles. What he knows of the pollution challenges facing California I'm guessing would fit on a microscope slide, but he couldn't care less as long as he can own some libs and send out a press release titled: 'Rep. Mann Reverses Biden Green New Deal Policies.' When I was growing up, we didn't have civics bees. We barely had any civics education. Truth be told, most of what we ever knew about the workings of government came from 'Schoolhouse Rock,' three-minute educational cartoons sandwiched between Jonny Quest and Scooby-Doo on Saturday mornings. Cue the music: 'I'm just a bill, yes I'm only a bill, and I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill.' I can't help thinking if we'd had civics bees back then, we wouldn't be in this mess we're in today. So it lifts my heart to see these earnest young kids competing over who knows the most about the people and ideals that built America. It gives me great hope that their future will be better than the present that my generation has handed them.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump says Musk to face 'very serious consequences' if he funds Democrats
By Nandita Bose BEDMINSTER, N.J. (Reuters) -Donald Trump said on Saturday there would be "serious consequences" if Elon Musk funds U.S. Democrats running against Republicans who vote for the president's sweeping tax-cut and spending bill and said his relationship with his billionaire donor is over. In a telephone interview with NBC News, Trump declined to say what those consequences would be, and went on to add that he had not had discussions about whether to investigate Musk. Asked if he thought his relationship with the Tesla and SpaceX CEO was over, Trump said, "I would assume so, yeah." "No," Trump told NBC when asked if he had any desire to repair his relationship with Musk. Musk and Trump began exchanging insults this week, as Musk denounced Trump's bill as a "disgusting abomination." Musk's opposition to the measure is complicating efforts to pass the bill in Congress, where Republicans hold a slim majority in the House of Representatives and Senate. The bill narrowly passed the House last month and is now before the Senate, where Trump's fellow Republicans are considering making changes. Nonpartisan analysts estimate the measure would add $2.4 trillion to the U.S. debt over 10 years. Trump said on Saturday he is confident the bill would get passed by the U.S. July 4 Independence Day holiday. "In fact, yeah, people that were, were going to vote for it are now enthusiastically going to vote for it, and we expect it to pass," Trump told NBC. Musk had deleted some social media posts critical of Trump, including one that signaled support for impeaching the president, appearing to seek a de-escalation of their public feud, which exploded on Thursday. Trump late on Friday suggested a review of federal government contracts held by Musk. People who have spoken to Musk said his anger has begun to recede and they think he will want to repair his relationship with Trump.
