DailyDirt: More Clues To The Origins Of Life On Earth

DC Appeals Court Says Anti-SLAPP Laws Shouldn't Apply In Federal Courts

from the ruh-roh dept

Tue, Apr 28th 2015 3:58pm — Mike Masnick

We've discussed for quite some time the importance of anti-SLAPP laws, and how it's ridiculous that we don't have a federal anti-SLAPP law. Once again, anti-SLAPP laws are used to toss out bogus lawsuits that were clearly filed for the sake of silencing someone's speech (SLAPP stands for "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation"). Right now only some states have them, and there are many variations in the various state laws, with some much better than others. Unfortunately, a new ruling in the DC Circuit appeals court may makestate anti-SLAPP laws much less effective. That's because it says, more or less, that state anti-SLAPP laws only apply to cases in state/local courts, and not those that are in federal court (such as any case between two parties in different states).

Under the Federal Rules, a plaintiff is generally entitled to trial if he or she meets the Rules 12 and 56 standards to overcome a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. But the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act nullifies that entitlement in certain cases. Under the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act, the plaintiff is not able to get to trial just by meeting those Rules 12 and 56 standards. The D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act, in other words, conflicts with the Federal Rules by setting up an additional hurdle a plaintiff must jump over to get to trial.

In other words, in the DC Circuit, this finding says that as long as the dispute is between two parties in different jurisdictions, the anti-SLAPP law is basically toothless. Its reasoning is that Federal Rules of Civil Procedure list out the processes under which a court can dismiss a claim before a trial, and it doesn't include the same process as the anti-SLAPP process. And thus, the Federal Rules effectively overrule any local anti-SLAPP law in federal court.

As Paul Levy notes in the link above, this finding goes against findings in the First, Fifth and Ninth Circuits and creates a circuit split that he hopes will be appealed to the Supreme Court (even though the appeals court eventually did dismiss the case on other grounds).

Either way, this really (once again) reinforces the absolute need for a strong federal anti-SLAPP law. Not only would it solve messes like this, but it would protect free speech rights across the country, rather than allowing some states to protect them, while others allow people to be silenced via bogus lawsuits.

13 7171 1549030 (PDF)13 7171 1549030 (Text)

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: anti-slapp, circuit split, dc circuit, diversity, federal courts, free speech

13 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 28 Apr 2015 @ 4:03pm

Popehat lawsplainer
Ken White's “Lawsplainer: Why The D.C. Circuit's Anti-SLAPP Ruling Is Important” (Popehat) is worth highlighting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 28 Apr 2015 @ 4:45pm
  
  Re: Popehat lawsplainer
  Damn, I like his style. Very clear, and funny to boot. Way to go Ken.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 28 Apr 2015 @ 4:47pm

Too many lawyers
Are there too many lawyers with 'friends' in the lawsuit business to get Federal Anti-SLAPP legislation through?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 28 Apr 2015 @ 4:48pm
  
  Re: Too many lawyers
  Dangit, I meant to say in Congress.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 28 Apr 2015 @ 4:53pm
    
    Re: Re: Too many lawyers
    That is one of the main stumbling blocks against federal anti-SLAPP laws yes, lawyers who are not pleased with the idea that a lawsuit can be shot down at the outset, instead of them being able to rack up a ton of billable hours.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave Cortright (profile), 28 Apr 2015 @ 4:52pm

Seems like a no-brainer for an up and coming congressperson
So why hasn't that happened yet? What am I missing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 28 Apr 2015 @ 4:55pm
  
  Re: Seems like a no-brainer for an up and coming congressperson
  Money, pools of money, coming from those that rather like the system as it currently stands. Not to mention I'm sure more than a few of them, either directly or through friends, quite like the idea of being able to silence pesky people with frivolous lawsuits, so why would they want to take that ability away?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
James Burkhardt (profile), 28 Apr 2015 @ 7:27pm

Hate to say. I think I agree with this ruling. As someone who almost faced a SLAPP lawsuit (I wasn't the person they even wanted to sue, but I wasn't going to admit that because I wanted to have them explain to a judge how they determined I was the one running the website), the lack of an anti-SLAPP law in Nevada at that time (it wouldn't become law until a year later) was a nightmare for me. But I agree that they probably should apply to federal cases. And I agree with Mike, this only highlights the need for a Federal Anti-SLAPP law to protect 1st amendment speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CharlieBrown, 28 Apr 2015 @ 8:42pm

Interpretation
If I'm reading this right, they're basically claiming the first ammendment apples to SLAPP suits and so anti-SLAPP would be anti-first ammendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 28 Apr 2015 @ 8:51pm
  
  Re: Interpretation
  Not quite. If I understood Ken's write-up on the case correctly, the matter is more a procedural one, where the DC judges found that anti-SLAPP laws in this case were 'redundant' when considering other laws regarding how and when you can ask for a case to be dismissed.
  
  On the one hand, I can sorta see their point, but at the same time, the entire point of anti-SLAPP laws is to defang the threat of a lawsuit when using it to threaten or retaliate against someone, something which regular procedure with regards to the how and when when it comes to lawsuits lack(which are the entire purpose SLAPP lawsuits are so effective, because even if they are completely bogus, 'regular' rules don't allow someone to get out from under them without paying dearly in the process).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Apr 2015 @ 9:09pm
  
  Re: Interpretation
  If I'm reading this right...
  if (FALSE) then you are reading it right.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 28 Apr 2015 @ 10:44pm

Maybe someone not from DC should sue that judge for being a moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2015 @ 7:11pm
  
  Re:
  Sadly, the judge is doing this right. The lack of a federal anti-SLAPP law is problematic for exactly this reason: federal law, where it applies, trumps local law. To do it any other way would invite chaos. So, federal law lacks anti-SLAPP laws? The judge has no choice but to apply the non-anti-SLAPP federal law over the local law.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]