Kansas
RJI logo mark

Kansas

Anti-SLAPP protection

In 2016, Kansas enacted a robust anti-SLAPP law known as the Public Speech Protection Act (Kan. Stat. Ann § 60-5320).

Law summary

Kansas’ anti-SLAPP law applies to claims based on an individual’s exercise of their rights of free speech, petition, or association “in connection with a public issue or issue of public interest to the maximum extent permitted by law while, at the same time, protecting the rights of a person to file meritorious lawsuits for demonstrable injury” (K.S.A. 60-5320(b)). The statute covers communication in judicial, legislative, executive, and other governmental proceedings, as well as those likely to encourage public participation or governmental consideration of issues.

Legal actions

Kansas’s anti-SLAPP law includes three key features to protect publishers:

  • Motion to strike: A party can file a motion to strike a claim based on the exercise of free speech, petition, or association rights. The moving party must show a prima facie case that the claim involves protected activities. The burden then shifts to the responding party to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on the claim by presenting substantial competent evidence (K.S.A. 60-5320(d)).
  • Hearing and timeline: The motion to strike must be filed within 60 days of the most recent complaint service, with a hearing held within 30 days of the motion service (K.S.A. 60-5320(d)).
  • Attorney fees: The prevailing party on a motion to strike is entitled to costs and reasonable attorney fees. If the motion is found frivolous or intended to delay, the court may award fees to the responding party (K.S.A. 60-5320(g)).

Helpful cases

The following cases illustrate the extensive protections of Kansas’ anti-SLAPP statute:

Kemmerly v. Wichita Eagle (2022)

Christopher Daniel Kemmerly, who was convicted of first-degree murder, filed a defamation lawsuit against several media outlets, including The Wichita Eagle, KAKE News Channel 10, and Fox Kansas, as well as two reporters and two Wichita police officers. Kemmerly alleged that these parties made false and defamatory statements about him when reporting on his arrest and conviction based on law enforcement reports, thus damaging his reputation. The Kansas Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s decision to grant motions to strike under the Kansas Public Speech Protection Act. The court found Kemmerly failed to provide substantial evidence that the statements made by the officers and the media were false. Additionally, the court determined the statements were protected under the fair report privilege and that Kemmerly did not demonstrate any actual damages resulting from the statements. The court also noted truth is an absolute defense to defamation and is determined at the time of publication, which supported the media’s reporting as truthful when initially published.

 T & T Financial of Kansas City, LLC v. Taylor (2017)

Tracy Allen filed a defamation and tortious interference lawsuit against Emily Taylor. Allen claimed Taylor made defamatory statements online and through emails. Taylor moved to dismiss the case under the anti-SLAPP statute, arguing her actions were protected free speech. The district court denied her motion, stating the anti-SLAPP statute did not apply because she denied making the statements. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, emphasizing that the anti-SLAPP law’s procedural protections apply regardless of whether the defendant admits to the statements, reinforcing the law’s purpose to protect against meritless lawsuits intended to suppress free speech​.

Doe v. Kansas State University (2021)

John Doe, a former student, sued Kansas State University and administrator Heather Reed, alleging that Reed disclosed his disciplinary records to his new college, violating his privacy and causing harm. Doe’s lawsuit included claims of breach of privacy and defamation. Reed responded to the inquiry via email, stating that Doe had been sanctioned in housing and removed, faced two stalking complaints and sanctions from the Office of Institutional Equity, and had Code of Conduct complaints leading to his expulsion from KSU. Reed and KSU invoked the Kansas Public Speech Protection Act to strike Doe’s claims, arguing that her communication was protected as free speech, petition, and association under the Act. They contended that by communicating with another university official regarding Doe’s sanctions, Reed was addressing a public issue and an issue of public interest, specifically the health, safety, and community well-being of university students. The district court agreed, finding the email related to Reed’s official duties and qualified as protected speech. Doe’s appeal, arguing that FERPA prohibited the disclosure and that the email was defamatory, was not persuasive. The court ruled that FERPA did not shield the information and that Doe failed to prove the email’s contents were untrue or defamatory. The court concluded that Doe’s claims did not meet the criteria to overcome the anti-SLAPP motion, resulting in the dismissal of his lawsuit.

Legislative activity

No current legislative activity as of July 2024.

Of note

The Institute for Free Speech evaluated Kansas’ anti-SLAPP law as strong, awarding it a grade of A-.