(Source: MIRS.news, Published 06/10/2024) Michigan would end its status as one of only 17 states without a law banning SLAPPs, or "strategic lawsuits against public participation," under a Rep. Kara Hope (D-Lansing) bill introduced in the House last week.
Hope said SLAPP lawsuits refer to those intended to "silence or intimidate individuals who speak out on items of public interest or concern," and the lawsuits can cost defendants thousands of dollars, typically initiated by wealthy and powerful plaintiffs against defendants with far fewer resources.
According to the Institute for Free Speech, SLAPP lawsuits often include a claim of defamation, which silences defendants if the suit is successful and can still result in significant financial damages for defendants who are successful, also prompting other speakers to refrain from speaking out, resulting in a "chilling effect."
Hope said her bill would protect Michiganders' First Amendment rights.
"SLAPP suits offend the First Amendment," Hope said. "People must be able to exercise their right to free speech without fear of being sued and having to pay tens of thousands of dollars to defend themselves. This legislation will protect Michiganders from individuals who abuse the legal system to silence people."
The Institute for Free Speech's 2023 Anti-SLAPP Report Card gave Michigan an "F" grade for SLAPP protection, with an overall score of 0 out of 100.
States like California, Colorado, Georgia, Kentucky, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah and Vermont ranked the highest, at "A+" or "A."
Michigan was joined at the bottom by states including Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Ohio, Mississippi, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
Hope said Michiganders are being affected by SLAPP lawsuits even today.
She said a Michigan resident recently became a victim of a SLAPP suit when they shared a social media post that voiced concerns about a local government's dealings with a private entity.
The resulting lawsuit has the potential to cost up to $50,000, she said, but if this legislation had been law when the lawsuit was filed, a court would have been able to immediately dismiss the case.
Hope's bill, HB 5788 , would "establish that it is the public policy of this state to promote the rights of citizens to vigorously participate in government," and would "protect citizens from the chilling effect of retributive and abusive strategic lawsuits against public participation, commonly referred to as SLAPP suits."
According to the bill text, that would mean shifting the burden of litigation back to the party bringing the lawsuit by providing for expedited judicial review and a stay on discovery, along with other time-and-money-consuming maneuvers.
A defendant served with a lawsuit would have 60 days to file a special motion for expedited relief to dismiss the action, and the court would be required to rule within 60 days after a hearing.
The protection against SLAPP lawsuits would not apply in cases where a person is acting in an official capacity as a government employee, enforcing a law and protecting against a threat to public health or safety, or if it is related to a claim that an individual violated the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, the Freedom of Information Act or the Whistleblower Protection Act.
Michael Pitt, a lawyer specializing in SLAPP suits and former president of the Michigan Association for Justice, said he "fully supports the legislation.
"These lawsuits are an abuse of the process and place unnecessary strain on the courts," he said. "They drain legal resources that can be better serviced elsewhere and can bury victims in legal debt trying to defend themselves. This legislation will protect victims from meritless lawsuits and uphold their right to free speech while also saving court resources."
Anti-SLAPP legislation has been introduced in the House before, including in 2010 by the late Rep. Kate Ebli.
