This piece originally appeared in The Detroit News on April 9, 2025.
Every American should have the First Amendment right to speak out on a matter of public concern without fear of a frivolous lawsuit. But that isn’t the case in Michigan, one of a dwindling number of states that still offer no protections against strategic lawsuits against public participation, or “SLAPPs.”
SLAPPs normally take the form of meritless defamation lawsuits that unscrupulous plaintiffs deploy to silence speech they don’t like, from criticizing an elected official to leaving a negative online restaurant review. Without strong anti-SLAPP laws, even defendants who win in court suffer financially and emotionally. Other would-be speakers are “chilled” into silence to avoid becoming targets.
Analyzing how well states protect their citizens from SLAPPs is a priority for my organization, the Institute for Free Speech. We painstakingly analyze anti-SLAPP protections in all 50 states plus Washinton, D.C. and publish an Anti-SLAPP Report Card with the findings. Our most recent report published in late 2023, with a new one set to publish later this year.
The news for Michigan isn’t good. It earns a grade of “F” and a score of zero out of 100 points, having no anti-SLAPP laws whatsoever.
Michigan’s “F” stands in sharp contrast to a positive national trend in recent years. The latest data shows that Michigan is one of just 14 remaining states that afford their citizens no protection against SLAPPs, while more than 60% of the American population now enjoys the benefits of a “good” anti-SLAPP law, meaning some form of “A” or “B” grade. Michigan’s poor performance is also at odds with states like neighboring Indiana, which earns a score of 85 for a “B+” grade.
Even more embarrassing for Michigan is that Ohio enacted a robust anti-SLAPP law in January, blessing Ohioans with a law that will score a perfect 100 in our next report.
No Michigan resident wants to see “Buckeyes 100, Michigan 0,” but that’s the score. And it will remain so unless the legislature acts.
There’s good news, though. As the report explains, Michigan has a clear path forward through the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), a model law proposed by the nonpartisan Uniform Law Commission that includes crucial provisions to deter SLAPPs and minimize litigation costs for defendants.
UPEPA-modeled laws require plaintiffs to show they have a legitimate claim early in the case. If so, the case proceeds and, if not, the lawsuit is promptly dismissed. They also give defendants a right to an immediate appeal if the court denies an anti-SLAPP motion. These laws also instruct judges to interpret the law’s speech protections broadly, and award victorious defendants their costs and attorney fees.
Although Michigan currently has no such law, there is reason for optimism: the recently introduced HB 4045 is currently making its way through the state House of Representatives. Last year, a similar bill passed 100-8 in the House but died when the Senate failed to act before adjournment.
HB 4045 tracks the key provisions of UPEPA, and would help Michigan join the 11 other states that have already used the model law to enact new laws or improve old ones just since the 2022 edition of our Anti-SLAPP Report Card.
States that pass strong anti-SLAPP laws based on UPEPA also often do so with deep bipartisan support, as shown by the overwhelming margin by which UPEPA passed the Michigan House last year. That kind of support reflects these laws’ powerful, cross-ideological appeal, as diverse groups of legislators and allies find common ground rooted in a desire to safeguard free speech rights.
Protecting the right to speak freely without fear of meritless lawsuits should be a priority for Michigan lawmakers.
