Anti-SLAPP protection

Maryland’s anti-SLAPP law is Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-807.

Law summary

Maryland’s law defines a SLAPP as a lawsuit brought in “bad faith” against someone who has exercised their First Amendment rights by communicating with a government body or the public on a matter of public concern. The intention of the lawsuit must be to undermine the communicators’ First Amendment rights.

Legal actions

The law contains expansive speech protections but limited legal tools for those facing SLAPPs. The law, for example, does not address attorney’s fees or whether a motion to dismiss stops the discovery process. The actions in the law include:

• Special motion to dismiss: A defendant in an alleged SLAPP suit may file for a motion to dismiss. In this case, a court must hold a hearing on the matter as soon as practicable.
• Stay all court proceedings: All court proceedings may be suspended until the matter about which the defendant communicated is resolved. 

Helpful cases

Maryland courts have not established consistent procedures for handling claims under the state’s anti-SLAPP law. As a result of the weak anti-SLAPP law, prior rulings are inconsistent and offer little guidance or recourse.

Ephraim Ugwuonye v. Oluwole Rotimi (2012)

Ephraim Ugwuonye sued Omoyele Sowore for defamation over an article that disclosed Ugwuonye’s legal assistance to the Nigerian Embassy in Washington, D.C., amid financial troubles. Sowore did not employ the state’s anti-SLAPP law in his defense, instead filed for a motion for summary judgment. The court granted the motion because Ugwuonye failed to prove the disputed statements were made with actual malice.

MCB Woodberry Developer, LLC v. Council of Owners of Millrace Condo (2021)

A property development business sued residents from two residential communities over their opposition to a proposed project through comments made to the Baltimore City Council. In response to the business’s defamation lawsuit and $25 million in punitive damages, the parties moved to dismiss the lawsuit and argued their comments were immune under Maryland’s anti-SLAPP statute. A trial court granted the motion, ruling the lawsuit was a SLAPP. The property development firm appealed, and an appellate court upheld the lower court’s ruling, finding the communicators’ statements were issues of public concern.

Kim v. Solpietro (2024)

Howard County community organizer Lisa Kim sued local blogger Jennifer Solpietro for defamation over a comment posted to the Howard County Progress Report’s Facebook page. Solpietro filed for a motion to dismiss under the state’s anti-SLAPP law and argued that as a chairperson for several community organizations, Kim was a public figure. A trial court denied the motion, so both parties filed discovery and the case proceeded to trial. Eventually a jury determined Solpietro did not defame Kim and no damages were awarded to Kim. In retaliation, Kim filed two new motions for a new trial, however, a circuit court denied both and she appealed. In the end, an appellate court reversed and remanded the original case for further proceedings because Solpietro did not assert a public figure privilege in her defense. The appellate court also determined Solpietro was responsible for court fees.

Legislative activity

A bill to strengthen the state’s existing anti-SLAPP law passed the House of Delegates in a vote of 98-40 in 2020, however it did not come to a vote in the state Senate. House Bill 129 was reintroduced in January 2023 but did not pass.

Of note

Maryland’s anti-SLAPP statute was passed in 2004. The state received a D from the Institute for Free Speech.