Idaho House unanimously passes anti-SLAPP bill combatting frivolous lawsuits
The Idaho House of Representatives in session at the State Capitol building in Boise on Jan. 23, 2024. (Otto Kitsinger for Idaho Capital Sun)
The Idaho House of Representatives voted unanimously Wednesday to pass a bill that the sponsors say protects public participation and freedom of speech from frivolous lawsuits.
Without any debate in opposition, the Idaho House voted 70-0 to pass Senate Bill 1001. The bill is designed to combat frivolous strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPP lawsuits.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
If the bill becomes law, people who are subject to such lawsuits could file a new anti-SLAPP motion in court. The anti-SLAPP motion would freeze the case and allow a judge to quickly dismiss any lawsuit deemed by the judge to be frivolous.
On the other hand, if a judge decides the lawsuit was not frivolous, the case would resume and the case would play out as normal.
The bill was co-sponsored by Sen. Brian Lenney, R-Nampa, and Rep. Heather Scott, R-Blanchard.
'What SLAPP lawsuits are designed to do is they are designed to intimidate or distract you or bankrupt you,' Scott said on the floor of the Idaho House of Representatives.
The Idaho Senate previously voted 32-1 to pass the bill on Jan. 27.
Senate Bill 1001 heads next to Gov. Brad Little's desk for final consideration. Once the bill reaches his desk, Little will have five days – Sundays excluded – to sign the bill into law or veto. If Little does not take action within five days, the bill would become law without his signature.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 hours ago
- Yahoo
Police Blew Up This Innocent Woman's House and Left Her With the Bill. A Judge Says She's Owed $60,000.
Years after a SWAT team in Texas destroyed an innocent woman's home while trying to apprehend a fugitive, the local government will have to pay her $60,000 in damages plus interest, a federal judge ruled Thursday. That decision may sound like common sense. But the ending was far from guaranteed in a legal odyssey that saw Vicki Baker of McKinney, Texas, left with a dilapidated house—and the bill for the damages—even though she was never suspected of wrongdoing. "I've lost everything," she told Reason in 2021. "I've lost my chance to sell my house. I've lost my chance to retire without fear of how I'm going to make my regular bills." In July 2020, law enforcement detonated about 30 tear gas grenades inside Baker's home, blew off the garage entryway with explosives, and careened a BearCat armored vehicle through her backyard fence. They smashed the windows and drove through her front door. (Baker's daughter, Deanna Cook, had given them a garage door opener and the code to enter the home.) Police were in search of Wesley Little, who was on the run after kidnapping a teenage girl. Upon arriving at Baker's home, Little—who had formerly worked for Baker as a handyman—encountered Cook, who called law enforcement. Little released the girl unharmed but refused to exit himself, prompting the SWAT team to destroy the home. He was ultimately found dead from suicide. "The tear gas was everywhere," Baker, who is now in her 80s, said. "It was on the walls. It was on the floors. It was on the furniture. It was everywhere." Her daughter's dog was rendered deaf and blind. Baker told Reason she has "a very high regard for the police," and she did not challenge that they acted in the best interest of the community that day. But not long after they ravaged her home, things began to fall apart even more, metaphorically speaking. Her home insurance would not cover the damages, citing a clause that protects them from having to reimburse people for damages caused by the government. But the government would not help either, telling Baker she did not meet its definition of a victim. That general excuse often works—as this is not the first such story. The Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment promises the government cannot take private property without "just compensation." But some governments have managed to evade that pledge by claiming there is an exception to that rule if the property was destroyed via police power. Judge Amos Mazzant of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in 2021 ruled Baker could sue, ultimately calling that interpretation of the law "untenable." In June 2022, a jury awarded her $59,656.59 in damages. Yet that victory would be short-lived. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reversed that judgment in 2023, ruling she was foreclosed from relief under federal law because police acted out of "necessity during an active emergency." The Supreme Court declined to hear the case last year. So Baker pivoted back to the Texas Constitution. Attorneys for McKinney argued that Baker's state law claim died with her federal one, an argument Mazzant rejected in his opinion published Thursday. "The [5th Circuit] specifically noted in its Summary Judgment Order that 'the Texas Constitution's Takings Clause differs from the Takings Clause set forth in the United States Constitution,'" writes Mazzant. "It is entirely possible for a defendant to violate the Texas Takings Clause—a clause more protective than its federal analog—without violating the Fifth Amendment." "Regarding future victims, this should help in Texas," says Jeffrey Redfern, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, who represented Baker. "As far as we can tell, municipalities in Texas have just been ignoring this binding decision from the Texas Supreme Court about SWAT damage, but hopefully some publicity around the result will spur change." At the federal level, however, the issue remains an open question. "Whether any such exception exists (and how the Takings Clause applies when the government destroys property pursuant to its police power)," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a statement after the Supreme Court denied Baker's case, "is an important and complex question that would benefit from further percolation in the lower courts prior to this Court's intervention." While some municipalities opt to pay innocent property owners in such cases, many treat victims like McKinney treated Baker. It doesn't have to be that way. "Paying these kinds of claims is not going to bankrupt cities," says Redfern. "Raids like this aren't an everyday occurrence in most jurisdictions, and the damage is usually in the five figures. Ruinous for many property owners, but an easy check to cut for municipalities." The post Police Blew Up This Innocent Woman's House and Left Her With the Bill. A Judge Says She's Owed $60,000. appeared first on
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Bill Clinton reveals key White House details in murderous new political thriller
WHITE PLAINS, NY – Most former presidents write memoirs after they leave the White House. Former President Bill Clinton has been there, done that. First on his literary agenda now? Writing political thrillers. Clinton is a thriller reader himself, but more than that he just really wanted a chance to work with bestselling author James Patterson. Their third novel, "The First Gentleman" is out now from Little, Brown and Company. Sitting down for an interview with USA TODAY, the prolific pair catch up like a couple of old friends – Clinton shares a story of tourists he spotted reading his wife's book while in Korea and gives Patterson the name of a new author to check out. "He reads everything," Patterson tells me. Both love S.A. Cosby, Michael Connelly and Lee Child. In their latest novel, the fictional Madame President Wright's husband is on trial for murder, a potential crime uncovered by journalist couple Brea and Garrett. Not only is it harmful to the White House image for the first gentleman and former Patriots player to be accused of murder, but it threatens to upend the carefully crafted economic "Grand Bargain" the president is nearly ready to announce. It's a twisty thriller with plenty of inside jobs, political sabotage and many, many deaths. Clinton and Patterson take us inside their writing process, revealing how they weave details pulled from real life with fictional characters to create the next big nail-biter. This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity. Question: How has your collaboration changed over three books? Patterson: I don't think it's changed. Other than, I will say, I think this turned out really, really well. If somebody's looking to read a book with really good characters and great story or if they want to find out sort of how Washington really works, I think this is really cool for either one of those kinds of people. But initially we had, it was a little bit of a problem in terms of getting the characters real. They weren't working and we just kept going at it. Clinton: We had this just gut-wrenching conversation because in the beginning, we were excited – what would it be like to write a book that was from the point of view of the first gentleman, the first woman president's husband? It had all kinds of fascinating ramifications. But then something happened while we were doing it and I realized we hadn't created anybody you could like. Patterson: We have these two (reporters) and they weren't working, either, in the beginning. When people think of my writing, they go "short chapters," but the whole thing is character. Alex Cross is, in my opinion, a great character. Lindsay Boxer is a really good character. The characters in "First Gentleman," there are four of them, are really good characters, and that's the key. Obviously (Clinton) was key in terms of making those characters work, especially in the White House. Clinton: People (in the White House) struggle to maintain some measure of normalcy, however they define it. Even though you have to be ambitious to be elected president and disciplined to execute the job, you're still a person. We all react differently to different things that happen. So we try to capture that. Patterson: The humanity. I wish we could get back to the understanding that whatever party you're with, (we are) human beings. I'll give you one quick example: Last year, the president called the house and my wife and he said, put it on (FaceTime). And there he was with his grandkids, and he was in a tiger suit with only his face showing. Human being! Right, and in this book, all the first gentleman wants to do is go on a run with no one bothering him. Patterson: President Clinton used to go on runs. Clinton: I went running every morning for years. I still have the M&M's box that I was given by the head of my security detail on my 100th run when I was president. I loved it. Patterson: Once M&M's get 20 years old you don't eat them anymore. Are there any other signature Clinton White House details that made it into the book? Patterson: You have a relationship with a man and a woman, and obviously, it would've been possible at one point for President Clinton to be the first gentleman. Clinton: It's the only job I ever wanted that I didn't get. Is that why you chose to make a female president in this book? Clinton: I had thought a lot about, long after I left the White House and Hillary was running, and I thought about it. This character, he and his president wife, they're closer to the age Hillary and I were when we actually served. So I was thinking about, even though he was a pro football player and macho guy, he was really proud of his wife. He wanted her to succeed. He wasn't threatened by her being president, but he could be threatened by people making certain assumptions about him, like he was a dumb jock, which he's not. Patterson: But is he a murderer? Clinton: We keep that hanging a long time. In the book, President Wright is trying to pass legislation to address Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. How did you come up with the "Grand Bargain"? Clinton: I knew what the drivers of the debt are and what the politics pushing against real change are, and so I tried to think of the things we could do to get it under control that would be the most bearable, both for people and politically. Patterson: It's a fascinating thing. How do you solve the problem with Social Security and Medicaid? And there is, you know, there's in the book, there is a solution. It's complicated, which is kind of cool. You don't hear anything (today), about, well, how do we solve these problems? I'd like to hear that right now. Yes, there is a problem. Clinton: Medicaid pays for about 40% of all childbirth and pays for an enormous percentage of senior citizens' health care and a lot of other stuff. It's really important. So this bill that's just been presented cuts Medicaid in order to help pay for a tax cut for millionaires and billionaires. In all respect, (Patterson) and I don't need a tax cut. We'd rather have people with health care. So these are choices, and unless people understand that these choices are being made, they can't know clearly whether they're against or for whatever's being proposed. Patterson: This lays out that there is an alternative to that which makes sense and we don't have to cut things off for people who really need help. What was it like crafting fictional presidential addresses? Clinton: I imagined what I would say if confronted with the challenges she was confronted with. If you really want to change something, people like to hear about it in speeches and imagine it, but it almost always requires a mind numbing, detail-written piece of legislation – not always, but mostly. So, I tried to figure out how to sell it in the speech and describe how complicated the legislation would be without putting people to sleep. I found it difficult, but I think it's important, because one thing I learned the hard way is if you can't explain it, you can't sell it, and if you can't sell it and it's hard, you're going to get creamed. The problem we describe is something like what really exists today. Except today, it's in many ways more severe. It's just that our economy has been, for the last 20 years, or now 30 years, stronger than any other one in the world. Patterson, were there any details about the presidency or White House that Clinton added that surprised you? Patterson: A lot of little things. I might set a scene and he'd go: "It can't happen in that room. That room is so small, there's not room for three people in that room." And anytime it pops up: "The Secret Service wouldn't act like that. They would act like this." A lot of the thriller writers that we all like, they just make stuff up. When you're working with a president, you just can't make it up, because he'll go: "No, it wouldn't work that way. Here's how it could work." One of the beauties of this book, and the three that we've done, is that it's a really good story with really good characters, but it's also authentic. Did you have a favorite character to write? Patterson: Favorite character for me is Brea – she just develops, she gets stronger and stronger for a lot of reasons, and there is one big twist in there, and that really propels her as a character. Clinton: I agree with that, and one of the reasons I liked her is that she's smart and brave and good and honest, but in the beginning of the book, she thinks something that's very wrong about a big issue, and when she knows she's wrong, she turns on a dime and does the right thing. You don't see that much in Washington. Patterson: Or in general. Clinton: There are people that think that you never admit error. You accuse other people of doing what you're doing, and you roll along. The worst thing you can do is admit that she made a mistake. I like her because she's playing in the big leagues − her whole life is on the line, and she still does the right thing. Patterson: We've sold this in Hollywood and ... the production companies go, "Well, maybe we should cast (First Gentleman) Cole." I'm going like, no, you better cast Brea, because Cole, he's a good character, but Brea, she's real, and Garrett, her partner, they are really key characters. And the president herself, but Cole, eh, I don't know. Not as big a character. Who would be your dream actor to play her? (Brea, the protagonist, is Black.) Patterson: There's so many. I mean, that's the beauty right now − one of the nice things that's happened in Hollywood, especially with Black actors, so many have been discovered. There are so many choices. What are you excited for readers to see in this story, especially fans of your last two thrillers? Clinton: I'm excited for them to see, first of all, that there's still room for citizen activism that can make all the difference in the world, from people who just want to do the right thing, like Brea and Garrett. Secondly, I want them to see that a president and her husband are people. No matter what's going on, she's still got to go to work every day. If she thinks (Cole) machine-gunned half a dozen people, she's still got to go to work. Nobody else can make these decisions. I want them to see how staff behaves, senior staff, and when they're honorable and when they're not, and what a difference it can make, because you can't be president unless you can trust them. You have to have some people you trust. Clare Mulroy is USA TODAY's books reporter, where she covers buzzy releases, chats with authors and dives into the culture of reading. Find her on Instagram, subscribe to our weekly Books newsletter or tell her what you're reading at cmulroy@ This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Bill Clinton, James Patterson new book is a murderous, twisty thriller
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Idaho State Police partners with ICE to deport inmates without authorization to be in U.S.
A close up of an Idaho State Police trooper's uniform patch. (Courtesy of the Idaho Governor's Office) Idaho State Police have entered into a partnership with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, to transport immigrants who are convicted of a crime and are not authorized to be in the U.S. to ICE detention centers for deportation, state officials announced Thursday. Idaho will participate in the jail enforcement model under the 287(g) program, which allows ICE to delegate specific immigration officer functions to state and local law enforcement officers, according to a news release Gov. Brad Little issued Thursday. State officials said Idaho State Police will only be targeting and transporting people who have been convicted of a crime and are finishing their incarceration sentence. Instead of releasing the inmates to the community after they complete their sentence, they will be directly transported to ICE facilities in Idaho for detention, state officials said. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX 'Idaho is stepping up to help the Trump administration transport dangerous illegal alien criminals to ICE facilities instead of being released back into our communities,' Little said in a written statement. 'These are people who have committed crimes such as domestic violence, robbery, driving under the influence, and other dangerous activities that threaten Idaho families. Idaho has taken many steps to increase our coordination with the Trump administration in the enforcement of our nation's immigration laws, and I want to further strengthen our state's partnership with President Trump to help address the national emergency posed by years of reckless border policies under the Biden-Harris administration.' Idaho State Police is seeking $300,000 in funding to pay for the transports, state officials said. The money would be used to provide up to 100 transports from Idaho jails or prisons to ICE facilities for deportation, such as the Jefferson County Detention Center in Rigby, state officials said. Idaho State Police will not be able to carry out any ICE transfers until the Idaho State Board of Examiners approves the funding request, which could occur as early as next week. 'I'm really encouraged to see Idaho making its communities safer by signing on with our 287(g) program,' Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons said in a written statement. 'You have to remember that we're talking about criminals — and often, they won't take an arrest sitting down — so when local jails are allowed to turn them over to ICE in a safe setting, we don't need to send dozens of federal law enforcement officers into the public to make arrests. Partnerships like this one keep offenders out of communities and protect our families, friends and neighbors.' CONTACT US The new Idaho State Police/ICE partnership essentially implements the transport aspects of House Bill 83, a Texas-style immigration bill that the Idaho Legislature passed and Little signed into law earlier this year. However, a judge temporarily blocked House Bill 83 from taking effect in March after ACLU of Idaho filed a lawsuit against the state, the Idaho Capital Sun previously reported. Under the 287(g) program, ICE is allowed to partner with local law enforcement agencies and the state does not need to resolve the legal challenge over House Bill 83 before moving ahead with transporting people convicted of a crime to ICE detention centers for deportation, state officials said. Earlier this year, Little also issued an executive order that called for state agencies to continue collaborating with ICE and called on state agencies to consider formal procedures to assist with the enforcement of immigration law. Idaho State Police officials began discussing the partnership with ICE after Little issued the executive order in February, state officials said. It was not exactly clear how many people convicted of a crime in Idaho would be subject to transfer to ICE facilities for deportation under Idaho's new partnership. However, state officials used the term 'hundreds' several times and said that each of the up to 100 transports to ICE facilities would include multiple people. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
