Anti-SLAPP protection

Michigan does not have an anti-SLAPP law.

Helpful cases

While Michigan lawmakers have never passed an anti-SLAPP law, judges in the state have addressed SLAPP-related concerns. The mentions are noteworthy, though they do not amount to a precedent-based anti-SLAPP protection.

Thomas M. Cooley Law School v. Doe 1 (2013)

In 2011, the law school filed a complaint against Doe 1 for anonymous statements posted on their blog criticizing the school. A subpoena was issued in an attempt to uncover Doe 1’s account information. In response, Doe 1 requested that the subpoena be quashed or that the court issue a protective order that would limit or restrict any identifying information. After the trial court denied the motion for a protective order, the court of appeals reversed and remanded their decision. Their opinions offer insight into what protections exist for anonymous speakers. In the majority opinion, the court of appeals rejected Doe 1’s suggestion for the creation of a new standard, arguing that Michigan discovery rules are sufficient in protecting “First Amendment interests in anonymous speech.” The opinion reads “we decline to reach beyond what is constitutionally necessary in order to judicially create anti-cyber-SLAPP legislation. Such decisions of public policy are the province of our Legislature. And the writing, or rewriting, of our discovery and summary disposition rules is the province of the Michigan Supreme Court.” In an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, Judge Jane Beckering wrote: “I see nothing wrong with this Court’s adopting a standard that is the same as or similar to one that has been adopted by numerous appellate courts across the country to protect the First Amendment right to speak anonymously.”

Paul Marcum v. Euclid Media Group (2022)

Paul Marcum sued media outlets over articles depicting him performing a Nazi salute and yelling “Heil Hitler” during a discussion regarding mask mandates at a local school board meeting. Marcum sued the publications asserting seven causes of action, including defamation. Deadline Detroit filed a motion for a summary disposition, which was granted by the court. Marcum had not specified what language was false and defamatory, as required by state law. All claims against the publication were dropped. However, Deadline Detroit’s request for sanctions was denied by the court.

Legislative activity

There have been several attempts to pass anti-SLAPP legislation in Michigan.

In 2010, the House passed HB 5036 allowing the dismissal of cases relating to a defendant’s right to free speech or petition. The bill included provisions that halted discovery and awarded litigation costs. The bill died in a Senate committee.

In 2020, a similar bill was introduced to the House that sought to implement common anti-SLAPP provisions if a civil action arises out of the defendant’s right to free speech or petition. These included staying discovery and awarding litigation fees. The bill died in committee.

Of note

While Michigan has no anti-SLAPP law, it does have legislation relating to frivolous lawsuits. For example, under MCL 600.2591, if a civil action or defense is found to be frivolous by the court, it “shall award to the prevailing party the costs and fees incurred by that party in connection with the civil action by assessing the costs and fees against the non-prevailing party and their attorney.”