State Anti-SLAPP Laws

Much of PPP's work focuses on state anti-SLAPP legislation. PPP works with state-based organizations and activists, as well as state legislators, to build support for anti-SLAPP legislation, strengthen existing anti-SLAPP laws, and protect those laws from being gutted.

Scroll or click below for two useful tools for those seeking more information about their state anti-SLAPP laws: 



State Anti-SLAPP Law Scorecard

PPP has graded each state based on whether or not it has anti-SLAPP laws and the quality of those laws. Hover over a state for a summary of its anti-SLAPP law, or click through to the state's page for more information.

A = Excellent; B = Good; C = Adequate; D = Weak; F = No Anti-SLAPP Law


State Anti-SLAPP Reference Chart

Special thanks to the Media Law Resource Center for its contribution to this chart.  Each state is listed with details about its anti-SLAPP laws, if applicable. Click on the state for additional information. View the chart below (best viewed on desktop) or download pdf:

Key: Y = Yes;  N = No;  ? = Unclear or has not been addressed
    > Any Forum: Speech made in any forum is protected. Not restricted to speech made before a governmental body.
    > Any Public Issue: Protection granted for speech made in connection with any issue of public interest or concern. Not restricted to issues under consideration by a governmental body or speech aimed at procuring government action in favor of the speaker.
    > Mandatory Attorney Fees/Costs: Award of costs and attorney fees is mandatory for successful anti-SLAPP defendants
    > Additional Burden: Statute or case law requires overcoming additional burdens, such as the SLAPP suit being brought in “bad faith,” or that the speech was without knowledge or reckless disregard for its falsity. 
    > Amendment After Grant: Pleadings may be amended after an anti-SLAPP motion is granted.
    > Amendment While Pending: Pleadings may be amended while an anti-SLAPP motion is pending.
    > Immediate Appeal: Anti-SLAPP motions are immediately appealable after denial. 


Jurisdiction Statute or Case Law? Any Forum? Any Public Issue? Mandatory Attorney Fees/Costs? Additional Burden? Amendment After Grant? Amendment While Pending? Immediate Appeal?
Alabama N/A
Alaska N/A
Arizona Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. 12-751 (2011) Y Y ? ? ?
Arkansas Ark. Code. Ann. 16-63-501-8 (2010) Y Y Y ? ? ?
California Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 425.16 Y Y Y Y/N 1 N Y
Colorado House Bill 19-13242 Y Y ? ? Y
Connecticut Public Act No. 17-713 Y Y Y
Delaware Del. Code. Ann. tit. 10 section 8136 (2011) Y Y Y ?
D.C. D.C. Law 16-55014 Y Y Y5 N ? Y
Florida Fla. Stat. 768.295 (2011) Y6 Y ? ? ?
Georgia Ga. Code. Ann. 9-11-11.1 Y Y ? Y Y
Hawaii Haw. Rev. Stat. 634F-1 to 634F-4 (2011) Y ? Y Y
Idaho N/A
Illinois 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 110/15 (2011) Y Y Y ? ? Y
Indiana Ind. Code. 34-7-7-1 to 10 (2011) Y Y Y Y ? ? ?
Iowa N/A
Kansas K.S.A. section 60-5320 (2016) Y Y Y ? ? Y
Kentucky N/A
Louisiana La. Code. Civ. Proc. Ann. art 971 (2010) Y Y Y ? N Y
Maine Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14 section 556 (2011) Y Y ? ? Y
Maryland Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. 5-807 (2011) Y Y Y ? Y ?
Massachusetts Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231 section 59H (2011) Y Y ? Y7 Y
Michigan N/A
Minnesota Minn. Stat. section 554.01 - .05 (1994) Y Y ? ? Y
Mississippi N/A
Missouri Mo. Rev. Stat. section 537.528 (2004) Y ? ? N
Montana N/A
Nebraska Neb. Rev. Stat. section 25-21, 243 -6 Y ? ? ?
Nevada Nev. Rev. Stat. section 41.635-670 (1993) Y Y Y ? ? N
New Hampshire N/A
New Jersey N/A
New Mexico N.M. Stat. section 38-2-9.1 -2 (2001) Y ? ? ?
New York N.Y. CLS Civ. R. § 70-a & 76-a (2008); NY CLS CPLR R 3211 Y ? Y ?
North Carolina N/A
North Dakota N/A
Ohio N/A
Oklahoma 2013 OK. HB 2366, the Oklahoma Citizens Participation Act (2014) ? ? ?
Oregon Or. Rev. Stat. section 31.150 et seq (2001) Y Y Y Y ? ?
Pennsylvania 27 Pa. Cons. Stat. section 7707 and section 8301-3 (2000) Y Y Y ? ? Y
Rhode Island R.I. Gen. Laws section 9-33-1 – 9-33-4 (1995) Y Y Y ? Y ?
South Carolina N/A
South Dakota N/A
Tennessee Tenn. Code. Ann. section 4-21-1001 – 21-1004 (1997) Y Y ? ? ?
Texas Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code section 27.002-9 Y Y ? ? Y Y
Utah Utah Code Ann. section 78B-6-1401 – 5(2001) Y ? ? Y
Vermont 12 VSA section 1041 Y Y Y ? ?8 Y
Virginia Code of VA: § 8.01-223.2.
Washington RCW 4.24.5109 Y ? ? ?
West Virginia Case Law Only10
Wisconsin N/A
Wyoming N/A

1In state courts, claims may not be amended if an anti-SLAPP motion is pending or has been granted.  In federal courts, leave to amend may be granted.
2Leading Case: Protect Our Mountain Environment, Inc. v. District Court of County of Jefferson, 677 P.2d 1361 (Colo. 1984).
3 Leading Cases: Field v. Kearns, 682 A.2d 148 (Conn. App. Ct. 1996); Royce v. Willowbrook Cemetery, Inc., 2003 Conn. Super. LEXIS 262 (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 3, 2003); Arigno v. Murzin, 2001 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2875 (Conn. Super. Ct. Oct. 2, 2001).
4The D.C. Circuit has held, in Abbas v. Foreign Policy Group, 783 F.3d 1328 (D.C. Cir. 2015), that the DC anti-SLAPP statute conflicts with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and could not be applied in federal court in a diversity case.
5In Doe v. Burke, 133 A.3d 569, 576 (D.C. 2016), the court held that a successful SLAPP movant is presumptively entitled to recover attorney’s fees, without any additional showing of frivolousness or wrongful motivation.
6“Free speech in connection with public issues” means any written or oral statement that is protected under applicable law and is made before a governmental entity in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a governmental entity, or is made in or in connection with a play, movie, television program, radio broadcast, audiovisual work, book, magazine article, musical work, news report, or other similar work.
7 Yes, a pleading can be amended while an anti-SLAPP motion is pending, but denying leave to amend is proper “when the proposed claim will not withstand a motion to dismiss, thus rendering amendment futile.”
8 Undecided, but amendment may not be used to avoid responsibility for costs and fees incurred in making a justified anti-SLAPP motion.
9Washington Supreme Court struck down a stronger anti-SLAPP statute, RCW 4.24.525, in 2015 as invalid on its face for violating the state constitutional’s right to a jury trial. The previous law remains intact.
10 Leading Case: Harris v. Adkins, 432 S.E.2d 549 (W.Va. 1993).