Pennsylvania passes robust anti-SLAPP protections
If you like this post, sign up to get The Nuance newsletter delivered straight to your inbox every Sunday night!
Clarification: This post has been updated to clarify a few of the provisions of Pennsylvania’s new anti-SLAPP law. You can also find more information about the law in our anti-SLAPP guide.
Earlier this month, Pennsylvania became the latest state to pass a robust anti-SLAPP measure, HB 1466. The bill passed the Pennsylvania House and Senate unanimously, and was signed into law by Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro on July 17. It is based on the Uniform Law Commission’s Public Expression Protection Act, a model law designed to prevent so-called strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs. These are lawsuits filed to try and silence speech — often that of journalists — typically through meritless defamation, privacy, or other tort claims. (As we talked about in this newsletter earlier this summer, UPEPA has been sweeping the nation!)
Prior to the bill’s passage, Pennsylvania’s anti-SLAPP law was narrow; it only allowed for expeditious dismissal of SLAPPs against individuals petitioning the government about environmental issues. The state had no protections for defendants in run-of-the-mill SLAPP suits, like a public official bringing a meritless defamation action against a journalist for reporting the official perceives as critical.
Now, the new law creates a process for quick, early dismissal of claims about “protected public expression,” which the law defines to include news coverage and commentary on matters of public concern and the activities of government.
The law specifically states that “protected public expression” is immune from civil liability under three circumstances: (1) when a party has failed to “establish a prima facie case as to each essential element of the cause of action”; (2) when a party has failed to “state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted”; or (3) when “[t]here is no genuine issue as to any material fact.”
Though framed in terms of immunity, this essentially creates a mechanism for courts to dismiss meritless claims early on in the litigation process, by referencing the same legal standards that federal (and many state) courts use to determine whether to grant a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment.
A motion under the new law must be made within 60 days of a lawsuit’s filing and, once a motion under the law has been filed, the rest of the case is stayed until the court has ruled on the motion (except under very limited circumstances). If a motion under the new law succeeds, the moving party is entitled to recover its attorneys fees and costs. Due to a procedural quirk in Pennsylvania law, certain procedural components of the law won’t go into effect until the Pennsylvania Supreme Court takes action. The law generally does not apply retroactively, but it may be used in ongoing litigation if a party adds a cause of action.
Suffice to say, this is a big win for press freedom in Pennsylvania.
For more information on which parts of the law are substantive and which are procedural, see the Reporters Committee’s anti-SLAPP legal guide.
The Technology and Press Freedom Project at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press uses integrated advocacy — combining the law, policy analysis, and public education — to defend and promote press rights on issues at the intersection of technology and press freedom, such as reporter-source confidentiality protections, electronic surveillance law and policy, and content regulation online and in other media. TPFP is directed by Reporters Committee attorney Gabe Rottman. He works with RCFP Staff Attorney Grayson Clary and Technology and Press Freedom Project Fellow Emily Hockett.