| Subgrades | |
| Covered Speech: | A- |
| Anti-SLAPP Protections: | A+ |
| Subscores | |
| Covered Speech: | 90 out of 100 points |
| Anti-SLAPP Protections: | 100 out of 100 points |
| Detailed Scoring on Anti-SLAPP Protections | |
| Suspension of Court Proceedings Upon an Anti-SLAPP Motion: | 20 of 20 points |
| Burden of Proof on Plaintiff to Defeat an Anti-SLAPP Motion: | 12 of 12 points |
| Right to an Immediate Appeal: | 25 of 25 points |
| Award of Costs and Attorney Fees: | 40 of 40 points |
| Expansive Statutory Interpretation Instruction to Courts: | 3 of 3 points |
State Anti-SLAPP Statute
In May 2024, Minnesota enacted into law a robust new anti-SLAPP statute.[1] It closely adheres to UPEPA. It covers “communication in a legislative, executive, judicial, administrative, or other governmental proceeding…communication on an issue under consideration or review in a legislative, executive, judicial, administrative, or other governmental proceeding; or…exercise of the right of freedom of speech or of the press, the right to assemble or petition, or the right of association, guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Minnesota Constitution on a matter of public concern.” However, Section 2(c) of the law lists several types of speech that are exempt from the law’s coverage.
With regard to the law’s other components, defendants can file a special motion to quickly dismiss meritless claims and halt burdensome “discovery” processes until the court rules; plaintiffs must substantiate their claims and show a legitimate case early on to overcome an anti-SLAPP motion; defendants can immediately appeal if their anti-SLAPP motion is denied, avoiding an expensive trial; and if defendants prevail, they are awarded costs and attorneys’ fees —– a crucial fee-shifting provision to deter SLAPPs. Minnesota’s previous anti-SLAPP statute was found unconstitutional in 2017 when the Supreme Court of Minnesota ruled that the statute deprived litigants of their right to a jury trial.[2] The new law appears to correct the previous law’s defect and represents a dramatic improvement in the protection of the free speech rights of Minnesotans.
[1] HF5216, available at https://perma.cc/Z3M3-5YXP
[2] Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota, 895 N.W.2d 623, 635-37 (Minn. 2017).
