America is ready for federal anti-SLAPP protection.
Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP suits) occur when a person or corporation tries to silence its critics by subjecting them to lengthy, costly, and stressful litigation for exercising their constitutionally protected free speech rights. Whether or not the plaintiffs win, they often succeed in subjecting their victims to the harmful financial, emotional, reputational and time costs of defending against a lawsuit. Federal anti-SLAPP legislation – which has been introduced in Congress on a bipartisan basis before – would provide federal courts with an ability to quickly identify and dismiss a SLAPP case before it causes significant damage. (For more detail about how the legislation would work, please see our 2024 analysis.)
At first glance, it might seem that federal anti-SLAPP legislation would be a tough sell right now. Political tensions are as high as they’ve ever been, and Congress is having trouble doing much of anything, let alone passing bipartisan legislation. And yet, because SLAPP suits impact people from all walks of life, federal anti-SLAPP legislation has broad, diverse, and bipartisan support. It can and should be brought into law.
Who Can Get SLAPPed?
SLAPP victims are a diverse lot. They include workers, consumers, concerned citizens, and journalists, as well as whistleblowers, activists, and pundits across the political spectrum. Here are a few examples of cases from around the country that appear to be SLAPPs, per public reporting:
* In 2022, three Virginia Tech students submitted reports to the Virginia Department of Labor and Industry (DOLI) alleging wage theft by their former employer, a bookstore, which was paying them less than minimum wage. Their employer threatened legal action if they did not retract their reports, and then sued them in Maryland for breach of contract when they failed to do so. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuits under Maryland’s anti-SLAPP law, which the court granted.
* In 2022, a local Democratic activist in Wisconsin posted on Facebook that a village official had lied about there having been years of discussions on extending term limits. The official stated that the topic had been discussed for several years, just not in the public record, and asked the activist to retract her comment. After she did so, the village official sued her for defamation. Although Wisconsin does not have an anti-SLAPP law, the judge dismissed the case.
Anti-SLAPP Protections Are Common Ground Across the Political Spectrum
Because SLAPPs can be applied so indiscriminately, with such high costs for their victims, anti-SLAPP legislation is broadly supported. Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia have anti-SLAPP legislation, most of which has passed on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis.
A politically diverse group of organizations has also signed a letter in support of state anti-SLAPP laws, especially the model law created by the nonpartisan Uniform Law Commission. Among their number were conservative think tanks, authors and journalists, environmental groups, and civil liberties organizations.
States with anti-SLAPP legislation as of 2025, by the party that won the state in the 2024 presidential election.
If Everyone Wants a Federal Anti-SLAPP Law, Why Don’t We Have It Yet?
Despite having widespread bipartisan support, Congress has not yet passed federal anti-SLAPP legislation, leaving a significant gap in protections for the public. Piecemeal anti-SLAPP coverage means that SLAPPers are often able to use “forum shopping” to bring their cases in jurisdictions that don’t have anti-SLAPP laws, whether that be in states without anti-SLAPP laws, in federal courts in states without anti-SLAPP laws, or in federal courts that have declined to apply the anti-SLAPP laws of the state in which they sit. For example, as described above, the Chinese company BYD didn’t sue the Alliance for American Manufacturing in Washington, DC, which has an anti-SLAPP statute, but at the federal level, where no anti-SLAPP law applies. AAM was unable to make a SLAPP claim and was forced to litigate the case through several rounds of appeals, despite BYD losing each time.
Anti-SLAPP laws are bipartisan, well-tested, and easy to implement. They serve plaintiffs, defendants, and the judicial system writ large, nipping abusive cases in the bud while allowing meritorious cases filed in good faith to proceed. They ensure free speech is not dependent on one’s relative wealth and power. In a time of fierce division in Congress, this one should be unanimous. It’s time to close the gap in American free speech protection and pass federal anti-SLAPP legislation.
