Kara Sears
Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) are lawsuits aimed at silencing or retaliating against journalists or news outlets for critical reporting. SLAPP lawsuits are often used to intimidate and interfere with free speech. While anti-SLAPP laws exist in 38 states and the District of Columbia, Michigan is not one of them. This means that journalists and news organizations in Michigan can be subjected to costly and time-consuming legal battles if they are sued for their reporting. In the absence of anti-SLAPP legislation, Michigan has received an 'F' grade for its lack of protection against these types of lawsuits.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Does Michigan have an anti-SLAPP law? | No |
| What is SLAPP? | Strategic lawsuits against public participation |
| Number of states with anti-SLAPP laws | 38 states and the District of Columbia |
| Michigan House of Representatives Bill | HB 5036 passed on August 19, 2010 |
| Michigan House of Representatives Bill Status | Not passed as of February 2011 |
| SLAPP-type lawsuit defense in Michigan | Possible to bring a claim of malicious prosecution against the original plaintiff |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- Michigan does not have an anti-SLAPP law
- The Michigan House of Representatives passed a bill in 2010 to dismiss certain cases
- SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation
- Plaintiffs can avoid dismissal by making a prima facie case
- Malicious prosecution claims can be made after a SLAPP-type lawsuit
Michigan does not have an anti-SLAPP law
Michigan currently does not have an anti-SLAPP law. SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. These lawsuits are often used to intimidate and silence critics and can impose significant litigation costs.
The absence of an anti-SLAPP law in Michigan has resulted in an 'F' grade for the state in the 2023 Anti-SLAPP Report Card by the Institute for Free Speech. This report highlights the need for essential free speech protections against SLAPPs, which Michigan currently lacks.
While the Michigan House of Representatives passed House Bill No. 5036 on August 19, 2010, which would provide for the dismissal of cases based on the defendant's exercise of their constitutionally protected rights, it is unclear if this bill became law. As of February 2011, it did not appear that the state senate had passed the bill.
The lack of an anti-SLAPP law in Michigan has real-world consequences. For example, Metro Times, a local news outlet, was forced to spend over $6,000 on its defense against a SLAPP lawsuit filed by a parent who was accurately reported to have made a Nazi salute and said "Heil Hitler" at a school board meeting.
Until Michigan enacts an anti-SLAPP law, those facing SLAPP-type lawsuits in the state may be able to bring a claim of malicious prosecution against the original plaintiff, although this requires consultation with an attorney.
Tulsa University Law: How Does It Rank?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Michigan House of Representatives passed a bill in 2010 to dismiss certain cases
Michigan does not have an anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) law. However, on August 19, 2010, the Michigan House of Representatives passed House Bill No. 5036, which aimed to provide a legal safeguard against SLAPP lawsuits.
The bill outlined that if a defendant in a lawsuit filed a motion to dismiss, the court must dismiss the case if it met either of the following criteria:
- The lawsuit was based on the defendant's exercise of their constitutionally protected right to petition the government, and the communication was aimed at achieving a governmental or electoral outcome.
- The defendant made a statement that was false with reckless disregard for the truth or knowing it was false.
The bill was introduced by Representative Kate Ebli and received bipartisan support. Testimony in support of the bill was given by Justin Kurtz, the former webmaster of the Public Participation Project and a victim of a SLAPP lawsuit.
Despite the bill's passage in the House, as of February 2011, it did not appear that the state senate had passed the bill, and it did not become law in Michigan. In the absence of specific anti-SLAPP legislation, individuals in Michigan who successfully defend themselves against SLAPP-type lawsuits may be able to pursue a claim of malicious prosecution against the original plaintiff. However, it is important to consult an attorney to determine the viability of such a claim in a given case.
FDR's Opposition to Anti-Lynching Laws: A Historical Perspective
You may want to see also
Explore related products
![Goosebumps 2 [With Bonus Content]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/919yaM8shLL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation
In response to the prevalence of SLAPP suits, some jurisdictions have implemented anti-SLAPP laws or statutes. These laws aim to protect individuals and organizations from meritless lawsuits that infringe on their freedom of speech and right to petition the government. Anti-SLAPP statutes pose challenges in understanding areas of law such as slander, freedom of speech, and civil procedure. They also vary greatly in scope and requirements as states try to balance the need to protect individuals from SLAPP suits while not preventing legitimate lawsuits from being filed.
In the context of Michigan, the state does not have a specific anti-SLAPP law in place. However, there have been efforts to introduce anti-SLAPP legislation. For example, in August 2010, the Michigan House of Representatives passed House Bill No. 5036, which provides for the dismissal of certain lawsuits that infringe on an individual's right to petition the government. Additionally, individuals who successfully defend against a SLAPP-type lawsuit in Michigan may be able to bring a claim of malicious prosecution against the original plaintiff, although the state does not explicitly recognize a "SLAPPback" claim.
While Michigan does not have a comprehensive anti-SLAPP law, there are still legal options available for those facing SLAPP suits in the state. It is important for individuals to seek legal assistance immediately if they believe they are the target of a SLAPP suit, as the specific circumstances of each case can vary.
Drone Laws in the UK: A Guide for Foreigners
You may want to see also
Plaintiffs can avoid dismissal by making a prima facie case
Michigan does not have an anti-SLAPP law. SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. However, the Michigan House of Representatives passed a strong anti-SLAPP bill (HB 5036) on August 19, 2010, with bipartisan support.
Under most anti-SLAPP statutes, the person sued can make a motion to strike the case because it involves speech on a matter of public concern. The plaintiff then has the burden of showing a probability of winning the suit, meaning they must present evidence that could result in a favorable verdict. If the plaintiff fails to meet this burden, the suit is dismissed, and many statutes allow defendants to collect attorney's fees from the plaintiff.
In Michigan, a plaintiff can avoid dismissal of the complaint if they can make a prima facie case that the purpose of the lawsuit is not to harass or intimidate or interfere with free speech. Additionally, they must show that one of the following is true:
- The defendant made a statement that was false with reckless disregard for the truth or knowing it was false.
- The defendant revealed something in the communication that they were prohibited by law from revealing.
The Origin of Universal Laws: Understanding Their Source
You may want to see also
Malicious prosecution claims can be made after a SLAPP-type lawsuit
Michigan does not have an anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) law. While the Michigan House of Representatives passed a strong anti-SLAPP bill (HB 5036) on August 19, 2010, with bipartisan support, it is unclear whether this has become law.
If you succeed in defending against a SLAPP-type lawsuit in Michigan, you may be able to bring a claim of malicious prosecution against the original plaintiff. Malicious prosecution claims seek to recover damages incurred as a result of a previous civil or criminal lawsuit that was brought without probable cause and for a malicious purpose, such as harassment. While Michigan does not explicitly recognize a "SLAPPback" claim, the elements of a malicious prosecution claim are similar.
In the context of SLAPP lawsuits, a malicious prosecution claim can be made if the original lawsuit was filed and/or maintained without probable cause and for a malicious purpose. The anti-SLAPP law automatically applies to every malicious prosecution claim, meaning only meritorious claims can survive an anti-SLAPP motion.
For example, in California, Peggy Soukup filed a SLAPPback action for abuse of process and malicious prosecution against her former employers after prevailing on her anti-SLAPP motion. The California Supreme Court found that Soukup showed a probability of prevailing on the malicious prosecution claim.
It is important to note that not all malicious prosecution claims are meritless, and consulting an attorney is advisable to determine the viability of such a claim.
Insurance Companies: Bound by Antitrust Laws?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
No, Michigan does not have an anti-SLAPP law.
Anti-SLAPP laws provide defendants with a way to quickly dismiss meritless lawsuits filed against them for exercising speech, press, assembly, petition, or association rights. SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.
If you receive a SLAPP lawsuit in Michigan, you should immediately seek legal assistance. If you succeed in defending against the lawsuit, you may be able to bring a claim of malicious prosecution against the original plaintiff.
