The Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the district court’s denial of a special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, sparking discussion among legal experts about the public interest exemption. In question is the precedent set by the Ninth Circuit that denial decisions under the anti-SLAPP law are appealable, the validity of which was questioned by two of the panel’s judges.
So what is the anti-SLAPP statute? SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) are lawsuits intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense. The anti-SLAPP laws, like that of California, are designed to provide an early way out for defendants of these cases.
The Ninth Circuit’s affirmation has implications for media companies, non-profits, activists, and whistle-blowers – essentially any entity that could be a potential defendant in a SLAPP suit – its effects spill over into various fields that touch upon free speech and public interest matters.
In this case, the district court denied what’s known as a ‘special motion to strike’, a procedure provided by the anti-SLAPP law to expedite dismissal of suits that are essentially efforts to intimidate or silence. The Ninth Circuit’s judgement upheld this decision, an act that has led to debate about when and how such decisions get appealed in the appellate court.
This development has been covered extensively by Morrison & Foerster LLP, a law firm with specific expertise in appellate and supreme court litigation, in a recent post in their Left Coast Appeals blog . As we continue to grapple with the balance between free speech and protecting individuals and entities from baseless litigation, it’s evident that decisions like these will be under the microscope.
In conclusion, the Ninth Circuit’s judgement has wide implications for judgments under California’s anti-SLAPP law, particularly regarding the public interest exemption and the process of appeals. These kind of legal determinations have real-world impacts that extend beyond the courtroom, affecting our ability to voice concerns, criticisms, and to collectively participate in matters of public interest. Legal professionals working in fields that involve public interest matters should keep a close eye on these developments, which are sure to have lasting impacts.