Latest news with #StrategicLawsuitAgainstPublicParticipation
USA Today
20 hours ago
- Politics
- USA Today
Florida free speech law could aid Wall Street Journal in Trump defamation suit
Florida is among 38 states with what are called 'anti-SLAPP' laws. A law central to First Amendment protections in Florida may apply in a federal lawsuit from President Donald Trump against the Wall Street Journal, which came after a report about a birthday letter from Trump to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Anti-SLAPP laws (SLAPP stands for "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation") are meant to deter people from filing frivolous lawsuits based on someone's speech or publication, and Florida is among 38 states that have such laws. In some states and court jurisdictions, it could mean a dismissal and awarding attorney fees to the affected party. But federal courts have taken different opinions about whether these laws apply in federal court, and Florida's law is particularly unusual in that it may award attorney fees to the losing party in federal courts, said David Keating, the president for the Institute for Free Speech. 'It's meant to help people's First Amendment right to speak,' he said. The president's lawsuit comes after the Journal reported July 17 that, among many letters from Epstein's family and friends in a leather-bound birthday book gifted for his 50th birthday in 2003, one had Trump's signature. That letter ends with "Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret," the Journal reported. Trump denied the letter and called the story 'malicious' and 'defamatory.' The day after it was published his attorney filed a lawsuit in Miami federal court, naming the Wall Street Journal, publisher Dow Jones & Company and its parent company News Corporation as defendants. It also named News Corporation's Rupert Murdoch, chief executive Robert Thomson and the two reporters who wrote the story. Anti-SLAPP laws are a "substantive statute" and news outlets meet the law's requirements that the lawsuit breaches free speech in connection with a public issue, said Deanna Shullman, a media attorney based in West Palm Beach. Therefore, the Journal would have to prove whether the lawsuit has no merit. "All the Wall Street Journal would have to show was that the lawsuit was meritless," Shullman said. The timeliness of this lawsuit holds significance, since it comes as Trump's Republican base is pressuring his administration to release more documents in Epstein's case. The calls to release the documents reverberate online on his Truth Social platform among conspiracy theorists and MAGA loyalists, and also among Republican and Democratic lawmakers in Congress. A representative of the Wall Street Journal declined comment on this story, including questions of whether the newspaper would use the state anti-SLAPP law. A request for comment to Trump's attorney who filed the lawsuit, Alejandro Brito, is pending. SLAPPing down a lawsuit Trump is seeking $10 billion in damages for defamation, but traditionally anti-SLAPP laws are designed in ways to allow defendants to move to dismiss a case early in the lawsuit before discovery, said Jennifer Nelson, a senior staff attorney with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. The critical part about anti-SLAPP laws is that they serve as a deterrent from filing substantial suits, since prior to their existence wealthy individuals would bring defamation lawsuits just to "punish" speech rather than win, Nelson said. "They wanted to drag the publication or the journalist through very expensive, time-consuming litigation as a punishment," Nelson said. Keating noted there haven't been any definitive rulings in the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that would give a hint of what direction judges may interpret the law. But Shullman noted that appellate judges have OK'd attorney fees under the law. This reporting content is supported by a partnership with Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. USA Today Network-Florida First Amendment reporter Stephany Matat is based in Tallahassee, Fla. She can be reached at SMatat@ On X: @stephanymatat.
The Sun
22-07-2025
- Politics
- The Sun
Stay granted on sexual assault suit against PM
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has granted a stay in the civil suit filed against Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim in 2021 by his former research officer Muhammed Yusoff Rawther over allegations of sexual assault. The decision effectively puts the High Court trial on hold, pending the outcome of constitutional issues that are being brought before the Federal Court. The decision, made by a three-member panel yesterday, means the trial will not proceed until the appellate court hears the prime minister's appeal against the High Court's refusal to refer key constitutional questions to the apex court. Case management has been set for Sept 2, during which a hearing date for the appeal will be scheduled. In a statement, Anwar's lead counsel Datuk Seri Rajasegaran S. Krishnan stressed that the prime minister is not seeking immunity from legal action or attempting to avoid trial. 'The prime minister is simply asserting his right to raise constitutional questions of public importance before the trial begins,' he said. Among the questions raised are whether civil suits involving a sitting prime minister's conduct prior to taking office should be subject to safeguards, and whether there should be protection from politically motivated suits aimed at undermining a government – similar to SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) cases. The legal team also questioned whether a filtering mechanism should be in place, similar to those applied to judges or Malay Rulers under Article 183 of the Federal Constitution before such suits are allowed to proceed. 'These are serious and unprecedented questions. If not addressed, any prime minister could be targeted with lawsuits timed for political impact, risking the stability of the executive,' the statement added. The stay allows the appellate courts to consider the constitutional implications before the trial resumes. 'The prime minister has nothing to hide and is ready to respond to all claims through a process that respects the constitution and the balance of powers it upholds,' said Rajasegaran. The civil suit against Anwar was filed by Yusoff who alleged that he was sexually harassed by Anwar in 2018. The lawsuit, filed in 2021, claims the incident took place at Anwar's private office. Anwar has strongly denied the allegation, calling it baseless and politically motivated. The High Court had previously fixed the trial to begin in June this year. Anwar had sought the apex court to rule whether Articles 5, 8, 39, 40 and 43 of the Federal Constitution grant him qualified immunity from Yusoff's suit. Anwar had asked the court to decide whether Yusoff's suit would impair the effective discharge of his executive duties and undermine the constitutional separation of powers. He had also requested the court to consider whether the lawsuit impacts his ability to carry out executive duties and undermines the principle of separation of powers guaranteed by the constitution.
The Sun
21-07-2025
- Politics
- The Sun
Court halts sexual assault suit against PM Anwar Ibrahim
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has granted a stay in the civil suit filed against Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim in 2021 by his former research officer, Muhammed Yusoff Rawther over allegations of sexual assault. The decision effectively puts the High Court trial on hold, pending the outcome of constitutional issues that are being brought before the Federal Court. The decision, made by a three-member panel today, means the trial will not proceed until the appellate court hears the Prime Minister's appeal against the High Court's refusal to refer key constitutional questions to the apex court. Case management has been set for Sept 2, during which a hearing date for the appeal will be scheduled. In a statement, Anwar's lead counsel Datuk Seri Rajasegaran S Krishnan stressed that the Prime Minister is not seeking immunity from legal action or attempting to avoid trial. 'The Prime Minister is simply asserting his right to raise constitutional questions of public importance before the trial begins,' he said. Among the questions raised are whether civil suits involving a sitting prime minister's conduct prior to taking office should be subject to safeguards and whether there should be protection from politically motivated suits aimed at undermining a government—similar to SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) cases. The legal team also questioned whether a filtering mechanism should be in place—similar to those applied to judges or Malay Rulers under Article 183 of the Federal Constitution—before such suits are allowed to proceed. 'These are serious and unprecedented questions. If not addressed, any Prime Minister could be targeted with lawsuits timed for political impact, risking the stability of the executive,' the statement added. The stay allows the appellate courts to consider the constitutional implications before the trial resumes. 'The prime minister has nothing to hide and is ready to respond to all claim through a process that respects the Constitution and the balance of powers it upholds,' said Rajasegaran. halting the sexual assault suit filed against him in 2021 by former research officer Muhammed Yusoff Rawther. The civil suit against Anwar was filed by his former research assistant, Muhammed Yusoff Rawther who alleged that he was sexually harassed by Anwar in 2018. The lawsuit, filed in 2021, claims the incident took place at Anwar's private office. Anwar has strongly denied the allegation, calling it baseless and politically motivated. The High Court had previously fixed the trial to begin in June this year. Anwar had sought the apex court to rule whether Articles 5,8,39,40 and 43 of the Federal Constitution grant him qualified immunity from Yusoff's suit. Anwar had asked the court to decide whether Yusoff's suit would impair the effective discharge of his executive duties and undermine the constitutional separation of powers. He had also requested the court to consider whether the lawsuit impacts his ability to carry out executive duties and undermines the principle of separation of powers guaranteed by the Constitution.
Yahoo
18-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Nassau County exec tears into Dems, demands they pay legal bills for trying to stop armed volunteer program
Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman tore into county Democrats who are suing to try to block his plan for a volunteer force of armed civilian deputies — calling it a politically motivated attack. The Republican argued in a newly filed counterclaim that the suit from two Democratic legislators was an attempt to 'punish, intimidate and harass' him over the deputy program, which critics have called a 'militia.' 'They brought a lawsuit against me to try to get me to not speak out about issues I think are important,' Blakeman said in a statement. 'They are trying to violate — not only my rights as an individual citizen — but my rights as county executive to represent the people of Nassau County.' Blakeman's attorneys said the lawsuit qualifies as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or SLAPP, and they're now asking for a judge to toss the case and force the Dems to pay his legal fees. The first court hearing is set for June 19 in state Supreme Court in Mineola — a high-stakes showdown that could set precedent for how far local governments can go in enlisting armed civilians for public safety efforts. Last year, Blakeman announced the plan and said all he's done is create a database of potential volunteers who were vetted and trained to assist in 'very extreme circumstances' when county police are overwhelmed. Blakeman claims the program is fully legal and rooted in public safety concerns — but critics like county Legislature Minority Leader Delia DeRiggi-Whitton blasted the force as a 'militia,' comparing them to untrained Nazi civilian forces. 'There was something called the brownshirts, which was basically having civilians all of a sudden become part of law enforcement without the training,' she said, comparing the policies. The lawsuit filed Feb. 4 by Democratic Legislators Debra Mulé and Scott Davis argued Blakeman violated municipal law by unilaterally creating the 'provisional special deputies program' using public funds — and then stonewalling FOIL requests for basic information about how it works. The suit claims the program includes expenses that qualify as illegal spending of taxpayer money — including shelling out funds for background checks, conducting random drug screening, providing training, and a $150-per-day stipend when they are activated. Carey Dunne, attorney for Mulé and Davis, slammed Blakeman's SLAPP counterclaim as a dangerous overreach, and said the case could have sweeping consequences nationwide if Blakeman's argument gains traction. 'You can't have political actors in this country allowed to sue private citizens for exercising their constitutional rights,' Dunne said, noting that while the plaintiffs are lawmakers, they filed as private residents and taxpayers. 'The initial impetus for filing the lawsuit was to discourage the government from creating a private militia. Now there are two dimensions to this case,' Dunne said. 'If that [SLAPP argument] were to take hold, that would be a serious setback for civil liberties.'
New York Post
18-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
Nassau County exec tears into Dems, demands they pay legal bills for trying to stop armed volunteer program
Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman tore into county Democrats who are suing to try to block his plan for a volunteer force of armed civilian deputies — calling it a politically motivated attack. The Republican argued in a newly filed counterclaim that the suit from two Democratic legislators was an attempt to 'punish, intimidate and harass' him over the deputy program, which critics have called a 'militia.' 'They brought a lawsuit against me to try to get me to not speak out about issues I think are important,' Blakeman said in a statement. 'They are trying to violate — not only my rights as an individual citizen — but my rights as county executive to represent the people of Nassau County.' Advertisement Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman ripped county Democrats for suing to block his plan to create a volunteer force of armed civilian deputies. Dennis A. Clark Blakeman's attorneys said the lawsuit qualifies as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or SLAPP, and they're now asking for a judge to toss the case and force the Dems to pay his legal fees. The first court hearing is set for June 19 in state Supreme Court in Mineola — a high-stakes showdown that could set precedent for how far local governments can go in enlisting armed civilians for public safety efforts. Advertisement Last year, Blakeman announced the plan and said all he's done is create a database of potential volunteers who were vetted and trained to assist in 'very extreme circumstances' when county police are overwhelmed. Blakeman claims the program is fully legal and rooted in public safety concerns — but critics like county Legislature Minority Leader Delia DeRiggi-Whitton blasted the force as a 'militia,' comparing them to untrained Nazi civilian forces. 'There was something called the brownshirts, which was basically having civilians all of a sudden become part of law enforcement without the training,' she said, comparing the policies. Advertisement The lawsuit filed Feb. 4 by Democratic Legislators Debra Mulé and Scott Davis argued Blakeman violated municipal law by unilaterally creating the 'provisional special deputies program' using public funds — and then stonewalling FOIL requests for basic information about how it works. The suit claims the program includes expenses that qualify as illegal spending of taxpayer money — including shelling out funds for background checks, conducting random drug screening, providing training, and a $150-per-day stipend when they are activated. Carey Dunne, attorney for Mulé and Davis, slammed Blakeman's SLAPP counterclaim as a dangerous overreach, and said the case could have sweeping consequences nationwide if Blakeman's argument gains traction. 'You can't have political actors in this country allowed to sue private citizens for exercising their constitutional rights,' Dunne said, noting that while the plaintiffs are lawmakers, they filed as private residents and taxpayers. Advertisement 'The initial impetus for filing the lawsuit was to discourage the government from creating a private militia. Now there are two dimensions to this case,' Dunne said. 'If that [SLAPP argument] were to take hold, that would be a serious setback for civil liberties.'
