Anti-SLAPP Protection

North Dakota does not have an anti-SLAPP statute.

Helpful cases

While North Dakota courts have never referred to SLAPPs in their decisions, these cases offer insight into how judges in the state have interpreted concerning lawsuits against publishers.

Riemers v. Mahar (2008)

The lawsuit arises out of an article Rick Mahar wrote and published in the Walsh County Record that criticized two proposed ballot initiatives focusing around child custody and child support laws. One initiative was on the state ballot in 2006, while the second did not receive enough signatures to make it on the ballot. Roland Riemers authored the latter. Mahar’s article criticized Riemers and other vocal supporters of both initiatives. The article was picked up by the Associated Press and published by several newspapers. Riemers wrote a response to Mahar’s article in a letter in the Walsh County Record. He also moved to sue Mahar for defamation. The suit was dismissed when the district court granted summary judgment for Mahar, ruling the contested statements “either were true or were Mahar’s opinion.” In its opinion, the court also stated Mahar’s statements were “privileged political speech,” even if they were false, and that Riemers did not provide evidence of the statements being made with actual malice.The decision was affirmed by the North Dakota Supreme Court. In his appeal, Riemers argued he was not a public figure and therefore did not have to prove actual malice because he was not identified as a “political candidate or sponsor of the initiatives” or attacked as a public figure in the article. He argued that his lack of evidence was unimportant, since the only necessary evidence was Mahar’s article. Finally, he argued that the court “made credibility determinations and weighed evidence not appropriate in summary judgment.” In its opinion, the supreme court affirmed that Riemers was a “limited purpose public figure.” Because of this classification and Riemer’s lack of submitted evidence, the court concluded Riemers failed to “raise a genuine issue of material fact.”

Empower The Taxpayer v. Fong (2012)

Empower brought a lawsuit against the defendants for speech related to Initiated Constitutional Measure 2, a ballot issue that would abolish property taxes. Empower claimed the defendants had “violated provisions of the Corrupt Practices Act by distributing false and misleading information about the effect of Measure 2” and sought injunctive relief. The case was dismissed under N.D.R.Civ.P 12(b)(6) by the district court, concluding that Empower lacked standing and that the Corrupt Practices Act “did not imply a private right of action.” The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the decision, ruling that there is no private right of action and that Empower failed to “state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”

Legislative attempts

There have been no recent attempts at passing an anti-SLAPP bill in North Dakota.

Additional

Although there is no anti-SLAPP law in North Dakota, other statutes may be used by those facing frivolous suits. For example, under North Dakota Century Code 28-26-01, if a claim is found to be frivolous, the court should award the prevailing party with “reasonable actual and statutory costs.”