On Monday, the Idaho Senate overwhelmingly approved a bill that would limit pointless lawsuits and safeguard free speech.
The bill, which targets what are known as strategic litigation against public engagement, has been characterized as an anti-SLAPP measure by Sen. Brian Lenney, R-Nampa.
The billIf a party files an anti-SLAPP motion, Senate Bill 1001 would halt legal action. Attorney fees would be reimbursed to the victorious side under the bill.
Lenney stated in the state Senate on Monday that Idaho is among the 15 states that lack anti-SLAPP safeguards.
These lawsuits, which can take years to defend, occur all over the United States. Additionally, according to Lenney, the defendant may have to pay tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. because the cases covered by this statute are not intended to be successful. They are intended to punish someone for exercising their right to free expression, to distract, to intimidate, or to bankrupt.
According to a 2023 analysis by the Institute for Free Speech, 35 states and the District of Columbia have anti-SLAPP legislation.
The only no vote was cast by the Senate leader. Although he had a different method, he stated that he agreed with the goal.
By a vote of 32-1, the Idaho Senate approved the bill. Sen. Codi Galloway, a Republican from Boise, and Sen. Ali Rabe, a Democrat from Boise, were not present for the vote.
Kelly Anthon, a Republican from Rupert, was the lone senator to vote against the bill. Anthon stated that while he supported Lenney’s objective, he took a somewhat different tack by using civil procedural laws.
GET THE HEADLINES FOR THE MORNING.
With Idaho Rep. Heather Scott, R-Blanchard, listed as a co-sponsor, the bill is now on its way to the Idaho House, where it may be reviewed by a committee before a potential vote by the entire House.
Legislation must pass both the Idaho House and Senate and not be vetoed by the governor in order to become law.
The measure would go into effect on January 1, 2026, if it were approved. According to the bill, it would be applicable to civil lawsuits or causes of action brought on or after that day.
A similar plan, Senate plan 1325, which Lenney sponsored last year, was defeated by a vote of 15 to 20 in the Idaho Senate. Concerns about the validity of last year’s law prompted members of both main political parties to vote against it.
The bill would allow judges to dismiss SLAPP cases earlier than they already may.
Lenney stated during Monday’s Senate floor discussion that the bill provides courts with an all-encompassing, effective structure that enables them to promptly settle fraudulent litigation. According to him, there is broad and varied political support for the law.
The judge is still able to make decisions. Appeals of decisions are still possible. Lenney stated that this has no bearing on the courts. It simply provides them with an extra method, as I mentioned. Furthermore, this bill does not grant anyone permission to engage in slander, defamation, or similar activities.
The bill would allow judges to decide sooner whether to proceed with cases, according to assistant minority leader Sen. James Ruchti, D-Pocatello.
According to him, it is intended for situations in which neither the plaintiff nor the general public are interested in the trial’s verdict. It’s the actual lawsuit. It’s the price of legal action. It’s the fame. The pressure is the cause. Regardless of the case’s outcome, it’s an attempt to use legal action to influence someone to alter their behavior.
Without the bill, lawyer Ruchti stated that if a move to dismiss is made, the earliest chance for that is often within six months of the lawsuit’s filing. He stated that the filing of a move for summary judgment could result in the second opportunity.
The court would then respond, “Yeah, there is law that supports your claim.” “We’re going to dismiss the lawsuit because, even if the facts are as you say, no reasonable juror could find that you prevail,” he added.
However, such is rarely done. “They take that very seriously when the court decides whether reasonable jurors could find in your favor,” Ruchti added. To put it another way, the trend is always to allow the matter to go to trial, with very few exceptions. so you are deserving of your court appearance.
The law, according to Sen. Todd Lakey, R-Nampa, who is also an attorney, preserves the integrity of the legal system and courts.
According to him, people must have faith that they are receiving an impartial and independent evaluation and that the legal system is not being abused to benefit certain parties who might have the means to do so.
OUR WORK IS MADE POSSIBLE BY YOU.
