27-01-2025
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
