Government Accountability and the Citizen Participation Act (H.R. 4364)
[T]hin-skinned bullies are trying to silence and intimidate their critics with frivolous litigation. But all citizens have a First Amendment right to speak out against government abuse—without getting sued for their speech by the very people whose actions they are protesting. – Bert Gall, Institute for Justice
SLAPPs intimidate and silence those who engage in public participation. They use the justice system as a weapon, and waste time and resources on frivolous claims. Frequently, the government, its employees, or those who seek to improperly influence government decisions are those who bring SLAPPs to silence those that raise issues of government abuse.
SLAPPs Targeting Those Who Speak Out on Government Abuse
Swift v. Clarksville Property Rights Coalition, No. MC CC CV OD- 08529 (2009)
• In 2008, in Tennessee, the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition (CPRC) ran an ad in the local newspaper criticizing elected officials and developers for backing a redevelopment plan including eminent domain. In response, the developers associated with the deal sued the CPRC for libel and invasion of privacy. In March of 2009, the circuit court dismissed the case, holding, “Debate on public issues shall be uninhibited [and] wide open. . . . Accusing a public official or public figure of using their political influence to obtain a benefit for others or themselves or favoring their supporters is not defamation.” Tennessee’s anti-SLAPP law covers only statements made before a government body, so the group was not able to recover attorney’s fees under it, as it would under the proposed federal legislation. Complaint available here.
Royall v. Main
• In November of 2008, a Texas developer sued the author of a book about an eminent domain development agreement the developer had signed. The suit, which named the author, the book’s publisher, a newspaper that reviewed the book and Law Professor Richard Epstein, who wrote the book’s introduction, seeks monetary damages and a permanent injunction on further printing or distribution of the book. Epstein was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in March 2009, and in June of 2009, the remaining defendants asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit. The Institute for Justice is defense counsel in the suit, which is actually the second suit brought by the developer in response to statements made about the development deal. In 2004, he sued the owners of two companies affected by the development deal who complained against his actions. That lawsuit settled in January of 2009, after nearly five years of litigation, under undisclosed conditions. See a wealth of information at the Institute for Justice's website. Royall v. Wright Gore, Jr., et. al., No. 29996 (2009); Royall v. Main, et. al., No. DC-08-13480-B (2009).
Mandel v. O’Connor, 99 S.W.3d 33 (2003)
• In 2002 in Missouri, a local mayor sued members of the city council, local Chamber of Commerce and outspoken citizens for raising concerns about bias in the appointment of a member of the city council. The ACLU of Eastern Missouri filed an amicus brief in the case, which the judge dismissed as to all defendants. “That it took nine months of litigation to protect citizens' free speech rights demonstrates the need for legislation limiting such suits by public officials against citizens engaging in legitimate petitioning activities on matters of public concern,” said ACLU-EM Executive Director Matt LeMieux after the dismissal.
Bradbury v. Superior Court, 49 Cal.App.4th 1108 (1996)
• In 1992, deputy sheriff Gary Spencer shot and killed a citizen during execution of a search warrant in California. Following an investigation by the district attorney, the deputy was exonerated. However, the district attorney's public report of the investigation questioned the veracity of the affidavit supporting the search warrant, suggesting that the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department was “motivated, at least in part, by a desire to seize and forfeit the ranch for the government.... Based in part upon the possibility of forfeiture, Spencer obtained a search warrant that was not supported by probable cause.” Spencer sued the district attorney for slander, who brought an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the case. The trial court denied the motion, but the court of appeals reversed, holding that the state's anti-SLAPP statute applies to public employees who issue reports and comment on issues of public interest relating to their official duties.
McCloskey v. Evans
• In September 1997, Betty Evans heard a commotion outside her apartment door in San Francisco. Through the peephole she saw an officer kicking a handcuffed suspect on the floor. She opened her door and yelled at the officer, "Don’t kick him," and immediately called 911 to report the incident. The Office of Citizen Complaints (OCC) investigated the incident, using Evans as a witness, and sustained a finding of excessive force against the officer. The officer then sued Evans in September 1998 for $25,000 damages based solely on her testimony to the OCC. In December, the officer dismissed the case, a month before the anti-SLAPP motion was scheduled. Evans’ brought a motion for attorney’s fees and the officer was ordered to pay $52,000. Information about the case available here, and here.
Marks v. Clarke, 102 F.3d 1012 (1997).
• In Washington state in 1986, police entered the homes of two Roma (Gypsy) families on a faulty warrant and searched family members – including a baby – who weren't the subjects of the warrant. The families sought $59 million in damages for the raid, and the city and county responded by countersuing in federal court in 1989, alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The district court dismissed defendants' RICO counterclaims two years later 1991. In 1997, 11 years after the search, the city paid $1.43 million to the families to settle the case.
The Citizen Participation Act protects speech about government abuse by:
1. Providing a procedure for expedited dismissal of SLAPPS;
2. Prohibiting or limiting discovery in a SLAPP, keeping costs low;
3. Providing for attorney’s fees and costs for a defendant who successfully has the case dismissed, which disincentivizes the bringing of SLAPPs.
Please note: Some of the information and commentary contained in this listing are based on court filings and other informational sources that may contain unproven allegations made by the parties. The truthfulness and accuracy of such information may be in dispute.