|Covered Speech:||0 out of 100 points|
|Anti-SLAPP Procedures:||0 out of 100 points|
|Detailed Scoring on Anti-SLAPP Procedures|
|Suspension of Court Proceedings Upon an Anti-SLAPP Motion:||0 of 20 points|
|Burden of Proof on Plaintiff to Defeat an Anti-SLAPP Motion:||0 of 12 points|
|Right to an Immediate Appeal:||0 of 25 points|
|Award of Costs and Attorney Fees:||0 of 40 points|
|Expansive Statutory Interpretation Instruction to Courts:||0 of 3 points|
How to Improve Minnesota’s Score
Policymakers who seek to enact an anti-SLAPP statute are well-advised to consider the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA) as proposed by the Uniform Law Commission.
In 2020, the Uniform Law Commission (ULC), a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization of state commissioners on uniform laws that recommends and drafts model state legislation, adopted UPEPA as a model anti-SLAPP statute.
More information about UPEPA is available here.
State Anti-SLAPP Statute
Minnesota’s anti-SLAPP statute was found unconstitutional; the Supreme Court of Minnesota found that the statute deprived litigants of their right to a jury trial.
 Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota, 895 N.W.2d 623, 635-37 (Minn. 2017).