WeVote

Bill

Bill

SD 2183

An Act strengthening the commonwealth's Anti-SLAPP law

194th Legislature (2025-2026) Introduced by Becca Rausch

Creates a fast-track Special Motion to Dismiss for claims based on protected speech or petition, enabling rapid dismissal and recovery of costs if granted.

House concurred
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SD 2183

Summary: An Act Strengthening the Commonwealth’s Anti-SLAPP Law (SD 2183)

Overview

  • Title: An Act strengthening the commonwealth's Anti-SLAPP law
  • Bill number: SD 2183 (Senate No. 1250 in the companion file)
  • Introduced: February 27, 2025
  • Status: House concurred; referred to The Judiciary (2025-02-27)
  • Purpose: Strengthen protection against Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (Anti-SLAPP) by providing a robust, expedited mechanism to dismiss claims that arise from protected speech or petitioning activity.

What the bill would do

  • Create and implement a new Special Motion to Dismiss under Section 59H for cases where civil claims, counterclaims, or cross-claims are based in whole or in part on the party’s exercise of rights to free speech, petition, or expression under the U.S. or Massachusetts constitutions.
  • Require courts to treat such motions as priority, ensuring expeditious hearing and resolution.
  • Allow the Attorney General to intervene to defend or support the moving party when the motion is filed.

Key provisions and changes

  1. Special Motion to Dismiss (SMTD)

    • Eligible claims: Claims based on protected speech, petition, or expression related to a public concern.
    • Standards: The moving party prevails unless the opposing party proves (i) the moving party’s rights were exercised with no reasonable factual support or arguable basis in law, and (ii) the moving party’s conduct caused actual injury.
  2. Expedited proceedings

    • Courts must hear and decide SMTDs as expeditiously as possible.
  3. Intervention

    • The Attorney General or a government agency/subdivision affected by the motion may intervene to defend or support the moving party.
  4. Discovery stay

    • All discovery is stayed upon filing the SMTD, with limited, court-ordered discovery possible only after a hearing and for good cause; the stay remains until the order on the SMTD is entered.
  5. Timing

    • SMTD may be filed within 60 days of service of the complaint, or later at the court’s discretion with appropriate terms.
  6. Costs and fees

    • If the SMTD is granted, the moving party is entitled to recover all costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, including those related to the SMTD and related discovery.
  7. Definitions

    • “Freedom of petition, freedom of speech, freedom of expression” align with U.S. and Massachusetts constitutional protections.
    • “Matter of public concern” includes statements about goods or services in the marketplace or offered to the public, whether written or verbal, recorded or displayed by any media.

Affected parties and potential impact

  • Defendants seeking to dismiss baseless or retaliatory lawsuits tied to protected speech or petitioning activity.
  • Plaintiffs facing potential early dismissal if their claims are primarily about protected expression.
  • Government entities (via potential AG intervention) and public-interest communicators (journalists, advocacy groups, businesses) that engage in public discourse.
  • Overall effect: Stronger procedural protections to reduce frivolous civil litigation aimed at silencing or chilling public participation.

Procedural and timeline notes

  • The bill represents a rewrite of Section 59H of Chapter 231 (General Laws) to enact a streamlined, accelerated dismissal mechanism.
  • No explicit effective date is stated in the provided text; typically, MA legislation specifies an operative date upon enactment.
  • Status indicates the House has concurred with the Senate version, moving it forward in the legislative process.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.