Minnesota Red

NOTE: On May 24, 2024, Minnesota significantly improved its anti-SLAPP statute. Read more about the changes here

Covered Speech: F
Anti-SLAPP Procedures: F
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

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.[1]

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

[1] Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota, 895 N.W.2d 623, 635-37 (Minn. 2017).

Dan Greenberg, David Keating, & Helen Knowles-Gardner