Iowa lawmakers have approved new legislation allowing courts to more rapidly dismiss lawsuits meant to threaten free speech rights, becoming the latest in a string of states to crack down on intimidating legal tactics.
The bill, now headed to Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) for a likely signature, targets what are known as strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPP suits. Those are civil lawsuits that are unlikely to succeed in court, but serve to intimidate the targets with an expensive legal fight in order to silence critical speech.
Its sponsor, Rep. Steve Holt (R), said he introduced the bill after a police officer in Carroll sued the local newspaper for reporting on a sexual relationship the officer had with a minor.
“Were this to be signed into law, it will be on the books going forward, which will be, I think, a tremendous victory in trying to protect our small-town newspapers and media outlets from being put out of business,” Holt said, according to the Des Moines Register.
Holt’s bill would allow the target of a SLAPP suit to file for expedited relief, asking a judge to throw out a suit within 60 days of its filing.
Lawmakers in Ohio, Idaho and Montana have all approved so-called anti-SLAPP legislation this year. Similar bills are at various stages of consideration in Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, South Carolina and West Virginia. Another proposal died in the Mississippi House this year.
After this year’s actions, at least 37 states will have anti-SLAPP laws on the books. Most of those new laws have come since 2020, when the Uniform Law Commission, a group that exists to bring clarity to areas of statutory laws, created model legislation aimed at limiting harassing lawsuits.
The laws exist “to stop frivolous lawsuits that seek to censor people,” said David Keating, president of the Institute for Free Speech, which backs the anti-SLAPP laws. “A lot of these lawsuits, these frivolous lawsuits make defamation claims. And with the internet, a lot of people today are speaking online, and that can appear anywhere.”
Keating said it is impossible to compile the number of SLAPP lawsuits filed in the United States, but that the frequency of those suits is rising.
Idaho Sen. James Ruchti (D), who backed his state’s bill, said the measure would provide relief to businesses or individuals who might otherwise have to wait six months or more — and spent thousands in legal bills — before the obvious outcome of a nuisance lawsuit is reached.
“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,” Ruchti said, according to the Idaho Capital Sun. “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.”
Anti-SLAPP laws do not always conform to the Uniform Law Commission’s model bills. Keating’s group rates states based on the level of protection their laws provide; both deep red states like Texas and Louisiana and deep blue states like California and Oregon have approved anti-SLAPP laws that earn the Institute for Free Speech’s highest marks.
“The most important thing is the amount of speech covered. If the law is too narrow to start with, then it doesn’t really do any good,” Keating said.
Pennsylvania lawmakers last year scrapped their old anti-SLAPP law, which was limited to protection for statements made about environmental law and regulation, for a new version that more closely adheres to the ULC’s model version. Maine lawmakers approved their own update last year.
In most states that have taken up anti-SLAPP legislation in recent years, opposition has been scant. Bills in Iowa, Montana and Ohio earned unanimous approval; Idaho’s version won support from all but one lawmaker.