Latest news with #UniformPublicExpressionProtectionAct
CNBC
13 hours ago
- Politics
- CNBC
Trump loses latest bid to get Central Park Five defamation lawsuit tossed
A federal judge on Friday dealt another blow to President Donald Trump's efforts to throw out a defamation lawsuit against him filed by plaintiffs formerly known as the Central Park Five. U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone said that Pennsylvania's Anti-SLAPP law, designed to protect defendants from lawsuits targeting protected speech, does not apply in federal court, rejecting Trump's motion to dismiss the case. "The only issue before the Court is whether Plaintiffs' claims for defamation, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED") can survive given Pennsylvania's Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, otherwise known as its Anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation Statute," Beetlestone wrote in a 13-page filing. "Pennsylvania's Anti-SLAPP Statute (a state law) does not apply here, in federal court," she wrote in the filing, adding: "Accordingly, Defendant's Motion shall be denied." Five men who as teenagers were wrongfully convicted in the so-called Central Park Five jogger rape case sued Trump in October, accusing the then-Republican presidential nominee of defaming them. They cited a number of statements Trump made during his Sept. 10 presidential debate against former Vice President Kamala Harris, accusing him of falsely stating that the men killed somebody and pled guilty to the crime. "These statements are demonstrably false," they wrote in their filing against Trump. The five men — Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson, Antron McCray and Korey Wise — spent years in prison for the rape and assault of a white female jogger, a crime they were later exonerated of and did not commit. Trump has tried to dismiss the defamation lawsuit against him, but has not been successful. Judge Beetlestone in April also threw out Trump's motion to dismiss the case against him in a different filing.
Forbes
27-03-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
Free Speech Rights: Anti-SLAPP Laws Of The U.S. Ranked By Quality
Anti-SLAPP laws suppress the censorship of free expression through lawfare. Anti-SLAPP laws are statutes that provide a substantive right of a person to an early dismissal of causes of action brought against them with the effect of silencing or punishing their First Amendment (and corresponding state constitutional) rights to freedom of speech and to petition. The idea ― which has been proven to be very successful ― is to prevent a plaintiff from using the heavy monetary and emotional expense of litigation to grind down a defendant, even if the plaintiff's lawsuit is ultimately shown to be meritless. Anti-SLAPP laws accomplish this by, basically, moving the summary judgment motion from the end of a case to the start of the case and imposing a stay of the litigation until the Anti-SLAPP motion is resolved by the court. Which U.S. jurisdiction has the best Anti-SLAPP laws? This article rates the Anti-SLAPP laws of the U.S. states and territories. There were many factors considered, but the primary considerations went to scope (breadth of protection), the availability of an automatic stay of the litigation or at least of discovery, the availability of a mandatory appeal of right to an unsuccessful movant, the awarding of attorneys fees and costs, and whether the statute contains a uniformity of interpretation provision to deter forum shopping. An ancillary purpose of this article is to let state legislatures know where their Anti-SLAPP statutes are deficient (or that they do not have one at all) so that these problems may be remedied. Because the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act ("UPEPA") uniquely satisfies all of the requirements, the states that have adopted the UPEPA are automatically granted an "A" rating. The states that have very good organic Anti-SLAPP laws, but do not have the benefit of the UPEPA's uniformity provision fall into the "B" category. States with workable but flawed Anti-SLAPP statutes get a "C" while the states with mostly useless statutes get a "D". The states with no Anti-SLAPP law at all of course merit an "F". So here we go: Quality Anti-SLAPP statute, including provision for uniformity of interpretation to prevent forum-shopping and enhance quality of court opinions. Quality Anti-SLAPP statute, but without provision for uniformity of interpretation. Average Anti-SLAPP statute, but restricted in scope and/or lacking important protective provisions. Poor Anti-SLAPP statute, significantly restricted in scope and without most important protective provisions. No Anti-SLAPP statute. The legislatures of these states (and Puerto Rico) are asleep at the switch. Well, that's it. As Anti-SLAPP laws do not change very often, I doubt that this will be anything like an annual list. Still, it may be interesting to look back in several years to see where these gaps in Anti-SLAPP law have finally been filled. Or not.
Yahoo
30-01-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge dismisses Phil Lyman's lawsuit against write-in candidates Richard, Carol Lyman
A Utah judge on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit brought by former write-in gubernatorial candidate Phil Lyman, who accused two candidates with the same last name of taking a payment from Gov. Spencer Cox's campaign to run for office. Third District Judge Amber M. Mettler granted a motion from Richard and Carol Lyman to dismiss Phil Lyman's lawsuit, saying the defendants successfully argued that their actions were protected under Utah's Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, which protects Utahns from being sued 'based on the person's ... exercise of the right of freedom of speech.' 'Here, it is undisputed that running for political office is constitutionally protected activity, and it cannot reasonably be disputed that all of the plaintiffs' claims against defendants arise from defendants running for office,' Mettler wrote. Phil Lyman, who lost to Cox in the Republican gubernatorial primary last June, refused to concede the race and launched a write-in campaign for governor. After Richard and Carol Lyman declared as write-in candidates for governor, Phil Lyman sued them, claiming they were offered '$1,000 and a steak dinner' by the Cox campaign in exchange for declaring their candidacies — which presumably could confuse voters who meant to vote for Phil Lyman. Richard and Carol Lyman denied the allegations, and the Cox campaign previously called the claims 'blatantly false.' After Phil Lyman filed his lawsuit — which sought up to $1.7 million in damages — Richard and Carol Lyman dropped out of the race on Oct. 25, agreeing to a stipulation that all write-in votes for 'Lyman' would be counted toward Phil Lyman's campaign. Richard and Carol Lyman celebrated the ruling in a statement Thursday. 'The claims in the lawsuit were categorically false,' Richard Lyman said. 'We had every right to run for governor and lieutenant governor and should not have been forced out by those with deeper pockets. Hopefully this is a lesson for anyone who would intimidate political candidates trying to make their communities better by (pursuing) a life of public service.' 'We have always maintained that our actions were lawful and exercised in good faith,' Carol Lyman said. 'We appreciate the court's thorough review of the case and its fair decision.' Phil Lyman did not respond to a request for comment. In addition to dismissing Phil Lyman's case, the judge also ordered him to pay court costs and attorney fees to Richard and Carol Lyman. The total litigation costs have not been made public, but an attorney for the Lymans said he would file an affidavit showing the costs on Friday. It's not the first court loss for Phil Lyman. The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided not to take up his case seeking to have Cox thrown out of office, after that lawsuit was dismissed by Utah's high court.
