The First Amendment Watch is a project sponsored by the Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute at New York University. The stated mission of the Watch is to document threats to the freedoms of speech, press, assembly and petition as protected by the First Amendment. Among other things, the Watch publishes “deep dive” analysis of contemporary free speech and related issues.
To further promote research in this area, the Watch has recently introduced an online database of so-called SLAPP lawsuits, with the acronym meaning “Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation”. Yeah, it is a terrible acronym ― everybody in this field gripes about it at one time or another ― but it basically refers to meritless lawsuits that are meant to either prevent or punish the exercise of free expression by causing the speaker to crippling legal fees to fight off the case.
The Watch’s new database is known as The SLAPP Back Initiative and you can access it here. The database currently only lists cases for 2024, which might not sound that impressive until you realize that is close to 500 cases nationwide. This alone is evidence that SLAPP lawsuits are a big problem for the public and the courts. And this is only the tip of the iceberg, as the database apparently only includes those cases where an Anti-SLAPP motion was brought. Many SLAPP cases are not subject to an Anti-SLAPP motion for various reasons, including that twelve states have no Anti-SLAPP laws, some states have nearly useless Anti-SLAPP laws, and many times the defendant or its counsel are unaware that an Anti-SLAPP motion may be filed in particular cases.
The database indicates that a significant percentage of SLAPP cases are against media defendants to attempt to silence their reporting. This was presumed by many of those practicing in this field, but now there is proof positive.
The new database allows for searches based on any of case docket number, case title, state, type of case, whether the Anti-SLAPP motion was granted or denied, and by date. Critically, there is also a link to the court’s order which rules upon the Anti-SLAPP motion so that you can read about a particular case yourself and see what it was all about.
What the database shows is that despite the proliferation of Anti-SLAPP laws in the U.S., such abusive litigation in derogation of free expression rights is still very much a problem. It also shows, however, that Anti-SLAPP motions are the best tonic for this problem. In about half the cases, an Anti-SLAPP motion zapped the abusive plaintiff with immediate dismissal of their cases and awards against them of hefty attorney fees. In the other half of the cases, the Anti-SLAPP motion did not cause the dismissal of the entire case, but some part of it proceeded with litigation. That’s what Anti-SLAPP cases do, which is to serve as an early gatekeeper that lets in only the meritorious cases.
The Watch’s database should prove useful to state legislators who are considering Anti-SLAPP laws in their state for the first time or are looking to upgrade their existing Anti-SLAPP laws to the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), which is proving to be very popular for this purpose.