OPINION: Idaho gets on board with proposed anti-SLAPP measure

The first Senate bill of the new Idaho legislative session offers something to ponder: the political backdrop and connections of the sponsors as opposed to what the bill actually does, which appears to be highly positive.

Senate Bill 1001 is described by its backers as a freedom of speech measure, but more specifically it provides a mechanism for “swiftly dismissing meritless Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, ensuring public engagement and expression on matters of societal or community interest not stifled by legal intimidation.”

A SLAPP is a legal action, usually undertaken by a well-funded person who has plenty of money to spend on lawyers, to attack someone else for marginal or no good reasons when they speak out on an issue of public concern. Wikipedia describes such suits as “lawsuits intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.”

SLAPPs are a real problem, in Idaho and nationally, and these sorts of lawsuits have popped up in Idaho in recent years. Some have generated statewide headlines.

Laws comparable to this bill are on the books in 34 states and the District of Columbia. Washington, Oregon, Nevada and California have had anti-SLAPP laws on the books for years. The Institute for Free Speech currently gives Idaho an “F” grade on its lack of an anti-SLAPP law.

The new Idaho bill would allow a defendant, within 60 days after a suit is filed, to seek dismissal of the case if it’s not strong enough, and stay actions until or unless the judge concludes the case does pass muster. It’s a simple approach but could choke some damaging legal maneuvers in the meantime. It would be a big improvement over existing Idaho law.

The political positioning of SB 1001’s backers, Nampa Sen. Brian Lenney (who also pressed a similar failed measure in the 2024 measure) and Rep. Heather Scott, of Blanchard, both Republicans, is a little less clear. Both have been close to a number of the Republican activists and interest groups involved with lawsuits of this kind in recent times.

One of the people caught up in one of those legal conflicts is Gregory Graf, an Idaho blogger and political activist, who has conflicted with some of the people now backing the bill. And he adds, in a detailed online post (idaho.politicalpotatoes.com/p/idaho-needs-good-faith-anti-slapp, and which I won’t try to parse here) about the background of the bill, that, “It’s hard to ignore the irony of Lenney’s sudden interest in curbing the very tool his allies have wielded for years.”

So what about the bill?

Graf made clear he would like to see and would better trust a SLAPP bill coming from a different source, but concluded, “This bill may pass, and if it does, Idaho will finally have protections against SLAPP lawsuits.

As Lenney said in asking for support for the bill, “Good people don’t deserve to get buried for exercising their First Amendment rights.”

That would seem to be the bottom line, even if there are some questions about how and why this one specifically came to be.

There are larger issues here too about how our legal system works. Clearly, there are bugs in the system. The anti-SLAPP laws don’t solve the underlying problems, but they do help protect against some of the worst immediate abuses.

It isn’t perfect (few bills are) and its use probably eventually ought to be expanded beyond the relatively narrow reach it has at present. It does say it should be “broadly construed and applied to protect the exercise of the right of freedom of speech and of the press, the right to assemble and petition, and the right of association, guaranteed by the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Idaho.”

The details should get close legal analysis. But if it’s as described, it’s a good bill and should pass.

Stapilus is a former Idaho newspaper reporter and editor who blogs at ridenbaugh.com. He may be contacted at stapilus@ridenbaugh.com.