Idaho Moving Quickly to Prevent Meritless Lawsuits with Anti-SLAPP Bill

Idaho has made significant progress in adopting anti-SLAPP legislation, an essential safeguard against meritless and retaliatory lawsuits. SB 1001, introduced in the Idaho Senate in mid-January, will ensure that those who find themselves hit with a SLAPP suit have a streamlined process to a dismissal. The bill, also known as the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, will now be delivered to Idaho Governor Little after receiving unanimous approval by the Idaho House of Representatives last week.

Under SB 1001, SLAPP defendants can file a special motion for expedited relief, which effectively stays all other lengthy and burdensome litigation procedures. The motion is entitled to a speedy hearing within 60 days, and a ruling from the court is required within another 60 days. The bill requires courts to dismiss these claims with prejudice once they are found meritless—when plaintiffs cannot show a genuine dispute of material fact exists or are unable to prove that the anti-SLAPP statute doesn’t apply. Defendants are awarded attorney fees and litigation expenses if victorious, a critical deterrent against filing SLAPP lawsuits.

A strategic lawsuit against public participation, or “SLAPP” suit, often takes the form of a defamation claim where the judicial system is weaponized to silence someone’s free speech. These lawsuits are used to burden advocates or individuals with costly and time-consuming litigation in order to silence them. What makes SLAPP suits notorious is that even if a defendant prevails in court, the financial burden, time spent, and emotional toll of the litigation often crushes individuals’ ability to comment on matters of public concern.

With this anti-SLAPP reform, Idaho aims to implement speech protections now found in most states. Today, Idaho is one of 15 states without any SLAPP protections.

Representative Heather Scott, the sponsor for the companion House bill, stated, “Idaho is one the few states without any SLAPP protections. We needed to change that.” Rep. Scott explained how difficult it is for courts to get to the meritless findings in SLAPP lawsuits, saying, “We wanted to move forward to prevent further frivolous litigation by at least giving our courts the ability to better determine what’s happening.”

The bill’s overwhelmingly bipartisan support in both Senate and House chambers is notable given Idaho’s previous attempts to enact anti-SLAPP legislation. In 2024, Idaho introduced a similar bill that failed in a 15-20 Senate vote. However, the renewed legislative momentum behind this session’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act shows a significant shift in attitude. The concluded multi-year litigation Idaho Representative Chad Christensen found himself in with a political activist and consultant after exchanging remarks with each other on X (formerly twitter) could be a reason for this change in the legislature’s stance on the issue.

SB 1001’s passage is a crucial step in protecting the practice of free speech in Idaho. Anti-SLAPP efforts limit the abuse of the justice system, ensuring that it is not used to stifle free expression. States without these protections can look to ALEC’s Public Participation Protection Act for guidance on how to follow the path of Idaho and other states tired of entertaining the abuse of their citizens in court.