Anti-SLAPP protection

Idaho does not have an anti-SLAPP law.

Helpful cases

Idaho has never had an anti-SLAPP law. As a result, there are few helpful cases that pertain to the press. Nonetheless, these cases highlight the need for a procedural mechanism to protect free speech against frivolous claims. 

Christensen v. Graf (2023)

This case is the latest civil dispute in a long-lasting legal dispute between former political strategist and activist Gregory Graf and Idaho legislator Chad Christensen. Graf filed a complaint against the state representative alleging he had infringed upon his First Amendment rights by blocking him from the legislator’s official Facebook page. Notably, the court refrained from deciding whether the social media page created a designated public forum. However, a court majority found the legislator’s management of his Facebook page account amounted to official conduct, therefore blocking a citizen from the page violated the First Amendment. Although local news organizations and lawmakers deem the legal fight between the legislator and the political strategist a classic SLAPP scenario, the court made no mention of SLAPPs in its decision.

Clark v. Spokesman Review (2007)

The Supreme Court of Idaho declined to award a local newspaper attorney’s fees despite determining the plaintiff’s defamation and false light claims were unconvincing. Appellant Trent L. Clark, a state chairman of the Republican Party in Idaho, sued The Spokesman Review after it refused to make a correction to a published quote from an interview. Although the majority ruled that the plaintiff failed to present compelling facts, the court chose not to authorize attorney fees to the Spokesman Review because it failed to reference a contractual provision or statute.

Verity v. USA Today, et al (2019)

A teacher was forced to resign from his teaching job in Idaho after news reports described his former inappropriate relationship with an 18-year-old student who he coached at a local high school in Oregon. As a result, James Verity and his wife filed a lawsuit against the news organizations alleging defamation by implication. The district court denied the media’s motion for summary judgment and ruled that despite the truth of the reported statements, reasonable minds could find that the media impliedly defamed the Veritys. The news organizations appealed that decision under Idaho Appellate Rule 12, and the Idaho Supreme Court subsequently affirmed the district court’s conclusion that Verity was not a public official or a public figure. The Supreme Court also affirmed the district court’s conclusion that a reasonable jury could find that the news reports impliedly defamed Verity about his having a sexual relationship with a minor, ultimately returning the case to the district court for further proceedings.

Legislative activity

Senate Bill 1352, which was introduced by Sen. Brian Lenney, R-Nampa, and Rep. Heather Scott, R-Blanchard, was rejected by the Idaho Senate in a 20-15 vote in February 2024. The law would have provided defendants a special motion for expedited relief and to stay discovery in certain cases, as well as the option to appeal and the awarding of costs and attorney’s fees.

Of note

Idaho is one of the small number of states that does not have an anti-SLAPP law.