| Subgrades | |
| Covered Speech: | A+ |
| Anti-SLAPP Procedures: | A |
| Subscores | |
| Covered Speech: | 100 out of 100 points |
| Anti-SLAPP Procedures: | 98 out of 100 points |
| Detailed Scoring on Anti-SLAPP Procedures | |
| Suspension of Court Proceedings Upon an Anti-SLAPP Motion: | 18 of 20 points |
| Burden of Proof on Plaintiff to Defeat an Anti-SLAPP Motion: | 12 of 12 points |
| Right to an Immediate Appeal: | 25 of 25 points |
| Award of Costs and Attorney Fees: | 40 of 40 points |
| Expansive Statutory Interpretation Instruction to Courts: | 3 of 3 points |
State Anti-SLAPP Statute
Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statute[1] protects (1) “Any oral statement made, or written statement or other document submitted, in a legislative, executive or judicial proceeding or other proceeding authorized by law;” (2) “Any oral statement made, or written statement or other document submitted, in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive or judicial body or other proceeding authorized by law;” (3) “Any oral statement made, or written statement or other document presented, in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest;” or (4) “Any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of assembly, petition or association, or the constitutional right of free speech or freedom of the press in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.” The May 2023 amendments to the already robust law expanded the rights covered by the statute (to include the rights of “assembly” and “association,” and the “freedom of the press”). Although discovery is stayed once an anti-SLAPP motion is filed, a court may nonetheless order specified discovery to be conducted if good cause is shown. After an anti-SLAPP motion is filed, the movant must make a prima facie showing that the claim arises from conduct encompassed by the anti-SLAPP statute; if the movant is successful, then the burden shifts to the respondent to establish the probability of prevailing through the presentation of substantial evidence to support a prima facie case. The May 2023 amendments also strengthened the law by remedying the principal previous defect of the statute. The amended law now explicitly guarantees a right to an immediate (interlocutory) appeal. The court must award costs and attorney fees to the anti-SLAPP movant if it orders dismissal of an action; alternatively, if it finds that the anti-SLAPP motion is frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, it must award costs and attorney fees to the respondent. The 2023 amendments also ensure that a plaintiff cannot avoid paying attorney fees and costs to the speaker defendant by voluntarily dismissing the litigation after an anti-SLAPP motion has been filed. In general, the anti-SLAPP statute instructs courts that interpret its language to do so “liberally,” an instruction presumably designed to foil cramped or narrow readings of the statute that would exclude marginal cases.
