Anti-SLAPP Protection

Rhode Island’s anti-SLAPP statute is R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-33-2.

Law summary

Rhode Island’s anti-SLAPP law provides immunity from civil claims to speech in connection with a matter of public concern. The immunity does not apply to “shams,” that is, speech that is deemed devoid of effectuating or procuring change in government action or other outcomes.

Legal actions

Rhode Island’s anti-SLAPP statute provides the following mechanisms, but unlike many states’ laws, does not specify a timeline for them:

• Motion for immunity: Defendants may file a motion to assert immunity from a civil claim.
• Stay of discovery: Once the motion is filed, discovery is stayed until the court rules on the motion. Specific discovery may be permitted by the court if deemed worthwhile.
• Attorney fees: If the court grants the motion, the prevailing party is awarded court costs and attorney fees, including damages if any cross claims or counterclaims by the responding party are proven to harass.

Helpful cases

The Rhode Island courts appear to lack a standard for how they apply the anti-SLAPP statute. The following cases also reveal no expeditious handling of trials, a crucial aspect to ensuring a defendant’s time and resources aren’t wasted litigating a frivolous claim in court.

Hometown Properties, Inc. v. Fleming (1996)

Hometown Properties filed for tortious interference and defamation against Nancy Hsu Fleming after she wrote a letter to the Department of Environmental Management with concerns about a local landfill. Fleming filed a motion for immunity and the real estate firm alleged the anti-SLAPP statute was unconstitutional. The Road Island Supreme Court concluded the anti-SLAPP statute was constitutional because it allowed the “widest room for discussion and narrowest range for its restriction.”

Henry v. Media General Operations, INC. (2021)

In 2014 Police Captain Russell Henry sued NBC 10 WJAR for defamation over a broadcast report about him. The segment reported Henry ordered patrol officers to increase the number of parking tickets distributed in districts represented by two city council members that had voted against a police union contract proposal. Nearly three years later, the broadcast station filed a motion for summary judgment. A hearing was then held in 2018 and the court found Henry’s complaint failed because his defamation claim could not be “rebaptized” as another claim to evade First Amendment protections. Henry appealed, and the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the prior hearing.

Fuoco v. Polisena (2021)

Johnston town council member Eileen Fuoco sued Mayor Joseph Polisena for comments made during a town council meeting that insinuated Fuoco “tried to rip the system off” for unemployment compensation and for claiming she had a poor attendance record at council meetings. The mayor filed a motion for immunity and a trial court allowed the anti-SLAPP statute to proceed to a jury. Subsequently, the jury concluded the statute did not cloak the mayor with immunity and awarded council member Fuoco with $20,000 in damages. The trial justice reversed the jury verdict and granted the mayor’s anti-SLAPP-law-based motion. Fuoco appealed and the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, holding the plaintiff failed to prove the mayor’s statements were false or made with actual malice.

Nat’l Educ. Ass’n of R.I. v. S. Kingstown Sch. Comm. (2022)

Parent Nicole Solas sent an e-mail to the principal of a South Kingstown public school requesting records and information regarding the teaching of critical race theory and other related concepts within the South Kingstown school’s curriculum. With other parents, Solas requested more than 300 public records using the Rhode Island Access to Public Records Act (APRA). The National Education Association of Rhode Island alleged the requests sought non-public information and sought to block the disclosure of many of the records. As a result, the parents requested summary judgment, asserting their action was immune from suit under Rhode Island’s anti-SLAPP statute. Although the trial court determined the parents’ records request was their right of petition, the Education Association presented evidence that the parents sought to inundate the school department and harass teachers they believed supported critical race theory. As a result, the court found some of the parent’s APRA requests were objectively baseless and subsequently could not assert anti-SLAPP immunity.

Legislative activity

Rhode Island enacted its anti-SLAPP law in 1995.

Of note

Rhode Island’s anti-SLAPP law received a B from the Institute for Free Speech.