Good News: Nevada's Strong Anti-SLAPP Law Is Constitutional

from the good-to-see dept

For many, many years we've talked about the importance of strong anti-SLAPP laws. In case you're new to the subject, SLAPP stands for a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. In short, SLAPP suits are lawsuits where it is fairly obvious that the intent of the lawsuits is to stifle free speech, rather than for a legitimate purpose under the law. The intention of anti-SLAPP laws are to allow for such lawsuits to be tossed out of court quickly -- and, frequently, to force those who bring those suits to pay legal fees. While actually getting a federal anti-SLAPP law is really important, for now, we're left with a patchwork of state laws. While many (though not all) states have anti-SLAPP laws, they vary widely in terms of what they cover and just how strong or effective they are.

As we've pointed out in the past, a few years ago, Nevada passed a really great anti-SLAPP law, though it's been under attack the past few years. Thankfully, Marc Randazza informs us that Nevada's anti-SLAPP law has been found to be Constitutional, meaning that it will survive largely intact (a few changes had been made a few years ago to bolster the law's likelihood of surviving).

Perhaps even more important was that the ruling basically recognized that Nevada's anti-SLAPP statute was similar to California's (much older and much more broadly litigated anti-SLAPP) law, and that Nevada courts can use California case law for its own anti-SLAPP cases. That's also a good thing:

A secondary issue in the case, and an important one, is that the Nevada Supreme Court recognized that Nevada and California Anti-SLAPP jurisprudence are essentially one body of law. This is not entirely new law. In John v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist., 125 Nev. 746 (2009), the Nevada Supreme Court held similarly, but this was discussing the prior version of the law....

[....]

The good news is that the Court reaffirmed the John v. Douglas County pronouncement that Nevada courts should rely on the rich body of California case-law in interpreting the Nevada statute. Given the scant case-law we have in Nevada, this is a godsend. California has interpreted "matter of public concern" as extremely broad. Meanwhile, I have seen Nevada trial court judges looking at the standard as much more narrow.

This is a good decision that brings more predictability to Anti-SLAPP litigation under the Nevada statute, and ultimately will function to keep Nevada's free speech protections aligned with its free-speech-protective neighbor.

Another good win for an anti-SLAPP law. Now, if only more states (and the federal government) will adopt them and really protect free speech from legal bullying.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: anti-slapp, california, free speech, nevada


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    David, 4 Feb 2017 @ 2:44am

    Who cares whether it's constitutional?

    The question is whether it is Trumptastic. Because executive orders are written up a hundred times faster than Supreme Court decisions, it's the former that rule the day.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2017 @ 1:06pm

      Re: Who cares whether it's constitutional?

      Trump can't issue an executive order striking down a state's anti-SLAPP law. It doesn't make sense - there's nothing for federal executive branch officials to do in a state court case. I get that you're upset over his executive orders, but your comment really has nothing to do with this post.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Cowardly Lion, 5 Feb 2017 @ 11:33pm

      Trump is a tool.

      Really? Trump's seven-nation anti-immigration executive order didn't last very long. He's already bitching and whining.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Bob Onit, 23 Jul 2019 @ 7:10am

    Trump beat Hillary, Trump will beat whoever you run against him in 2020, HAIL TRUMP!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.