Anti-SLAPP protection

The Illinois Citizen Participation Act (CPA) (735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 110) was enacted in August 2007.

Law summary

The law recognizes SLAPP lawsuits as tools for “intimidating, harassing, or punishing citizens and organizations for involving themselves in public affairs” (735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 110/5). The law is applicable to any legal motion intended to dismiss a claim in court if that claim “is based on, relates to, or is in response to any act or acts of the moving party in furtherance of the moving party’s rights of petition, speech, association, or to otherwise participate in government” (735 ILCS 110/15). The law also stipulates that such acts are “immune from liability, regardless of intent or purpose” (735 ILCS 110/15). The law, however, is designed to target only those claims that are meritless or retaliatory and lack any substantial basis beyond being connected to protected speech.

Legal actions

• Motion to dismiss: A defendant can file a motion to dismiss the lawsuit if it qualifies as a SLAPP.
• Accelerated hearing: The court must hold a hearing and decide on the motion to dismiss within 90 days after notice of the motion is given to the respondent. Appeals related to the denial or inaction on such motions are expedited.
• Attorney’s fees and costs: If the defendant prevails in the motion to dismiss, they are entitled to recover attorney fees and costs incurred in connection with the motion.

Helpful cases

The following cases illustrate the application and interpretation of Illinois’ anti-SLAPP statute and highlight rulings that have shaped its legal landscape in cases involving media.

Sandholm v. Kuecker (2012)

In this case, the Illinois Supreme Court defined a narrow interpretation of the protected activities under Illinois’ anti-SLAPP legislation.Steve Sandholm, a high school basketball coach and athletic director, sued several defendants for defamation, false light invasion of privacy, civil conspiracy and slander after they conducted a public campaign to have him removed from his position due to his coaching style. The defendants argued the lawsuit was a SLAPP aimed at silencing their exercise of free speech and petition rights, protected under the CPA. The lower courts dismissed Sandholm’s claims under the CPA, but the Illinois Supreme Court reversed this decision. The court defined two key scenarios where the CPA does not apply: 1) When the defendant’s actions were not aimed at procuring favorable government action, result, or outcome; and 2) when the plaintiff’s intent in filing the lawsuit is to recover damages for alleged defamation or other intentional torts, rather than to stifle the defendant’s rights of petition, speech, association, or participation in government. The court found that Sandholm’s suit was not a meritless SLAPP intended to stifle the defendants’ rights but a legitimate defamation claim seeking redress for reputational harm. The decision emphasized that the CPA does not provide blanket immunity for defamatory speech under the guise of petitioning activities and allowed Sandholm’s lawsuit to proceed.

Goral v. Kulys (2014)

The CPA barred a defamation suit filed by Anna Goral, a former candidate for alderman in Chicago, against Joseph Kulys, a blogger who wrote an article questioning Goral’s qualifications to run for office. Kulys’s speech was protected by the CPA, and Goral’s suit was deemed to chill Kulys’s exercise of that protected activity. Goral claimed that Kulys’s article damaged her real estate business, political reputation and caused her to lose two elections by implying she was not qualified for office and had illegally obtained a homestead exemption. The trial court granted Kulys’s motion to dismiss Goral’s defamation suit, finding it meritless and barred by the Illinois’ anti-SLAPP law. The appellate court affirmed this decision, determining that Kulys was acting in furtherance of his political rights and that the suit was solely based on his exercise of these rights and his actions aimed at procuring a favorable government outcome.

Ryan v. Fox Television Stations, Inc (2012)

An investigative report by Fox News Chicago suggested four judges from the Cook County Circuit Court, including Judge James Ryan, were neglecting their duties by leaving the courthouse early. Ryan sued Fox News for defamation. Fox News claimed the lawsuit was a SLAPP and moved to dismiss under the Illinois CPA. The court found the case met some criteria of a SLAPP but did not dismiss it. While the report was in furtherance of Fox News’s First Amendment rights and there were indications the lawsuit was retaliatory (filed days after the broadcast and demanding $28 million in damages), Fox News failed to show the judge’s defamation claim was meritless. Fox News admitted an error in their broadcast, mistakenly claiming Ryan left work early and went home by showing a car and house not belonging to the judge. Because the plaintiff’s legal action was not indisputably meritless, the motion to dismiss was denied.

Legislative activity

As of June 2024, there is no legislative activity regarding the state’s anti-SLAPP law.In August 2007, Illinois became the 26th state to enact an anti-SLAPP statute.

Of note

It took five years for Illinois legislators to craft the CPA. However, the Institute for Free Speech points out that while the anti-SLAPP procedures are nearly perfect, the scope of covered speech is lacking — Illinois scores only 20 out of 100 for this aspect.