Texas
RJI logo mark

Texas

Anti-SLAPP protection

The Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) was passed in 2011 and amended in 2019 (Texas Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.001).

Law summary

Texas’ anti-SLAPP law allows the dismissal of legal actions that hinder an individual’s exercise of constitutional rights, such as free speech, the right to petition, or the right of association. The law applies to communication “made in connection with matters of public concern” (Texas Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.001), including communications in judicial, legislative, or other governmental proceedings, or communications likely to encourage consideration of an issue by a governmental body. The law also specifies that “government entity, agency, or an official or employee acting in an official capacity” (Texas Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.003, (a)) cannot file a motion to dismiss.

Legal actions

Texas’ anti-SLAPP law includes several key features to protect publishers:

  •  Timeline: A motion to dismiss must be filed within 60 days of service of the legal action (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.003). The court must hold a hearing on the motion to dismiss within 60 days, with some exceptions for extensions. The court is required to rule on the motion within 30 days after the hearing concludes.
  • Two-step analysis: The court first determines if the TCPA applies. If it does, the court assesses whether the responding party has provided clear and specific evidence of a prima facie case for each essential element of the claim. The court must dismiss the legal action if the moving party shows entitlement to judgment as a matter of law[1]  (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.005).
  • Attorney fees: If the court orders dismissal under the TCPA, the moving party [2] is awarded court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. The court may also impose sanctions to deter the filing of similar actions. If the motion to dismiss is found frivolous or intended to delay, the court may award fees to the responding party (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.009).
  • Exemptions: Exemptions include certain legal actions involving government enforcement, commercial transactions, and bodily injury claims, among others. However, the law still applies to actions involving public communication, including journalism and consumer reviews (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.010).

Helpful cases

In the cases below, courts evaluated the applicability and limits of the TCPA in protecting media outlets and social media users from meritless claims.

ProPublica Inc. v. Frazier (2024)

In 2018, Dr. O.H. “Bud” Frazier, a Houston heart surgeon, filed a defamation lawsuit against ProPublica and the Houston Chronicle, claiming that their reporting on his use of experimental heart pumps in patients who did not meet clinical trial criteria was inaccurate and misleading. The publications sought to dismiss the case under the TCPA. Initially, the Harris County District Court denied the motion to dismiss, allowing the case to proceed. However, the news outlets appealed, and after a lengthy legal battle, the Texas Court of Appeals ultimately ruled in their favor in 2024. The court determined that the reporting was “fair, true, and impartial,” and dismissed the lawsuit, ordering Frazier to pay the publications’ attorney fees.

MediaOne, L.L.C. v. Henderson (2019)

Rodney Allan Henderson filed a defamation lawsuit after The Monitor, published by MediaOne, mistakenly used his photo in an article about the arrest of a different person, Rodney Wayne Henderson, an alleged meth dealer. The Monitor invoked the motion to dismiss under TCPA. The court applied the TCPA and ruled that while Henderson presented enough evidence to proceed with his defamation claims related to the original publications, he did not meet the burden of proof under the TCPA for claims related to the newspaper’s corrections. As a result, the court dismissed the claims regarding the corrections. The case was remanded to the lower court to determine the amount of attorney’s fees MediaOne was entitled to under the TCPA and to continue proceedings related to the decision on the original publication,

City of Port Aransas v. Shodrok (2019)

The City of Port Aransas sued Julie Shodrok under the Texas Interception of Communications Act (TICA), alleging that she had illegally intercepted a private conversation. Shodrok had recorded her meeting with the mayor with his consent but accidentally left her phone in the room, which continued recording a private conversation between the mayor and the city manager. Shodrok came back for the phone after four minutes and later shared details from this recording on social media. She filed a motion to dismiss under the TCPA, which the trial court initially granted. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, ruling that the city had established a prima facie case of illegal interception under TICA. The TCPA did not apply because it does not protect actions that violate TICA.

Legislative activity

In 2023, SB 896 was proposed to amend the TCPA. Currently, if a trial court denies a motion under the TCPA, the defendant can file an immediate appeal, and the case is automatically stayed while the appellate courts consider the appeal. The proposed amendment sought to remove this automatic stay provision from the law. The bill was unsuccessful.

Of note

The latest proposal to amend the anti-SLAPP law was viewed as an attempt to weaken TCPA. Currently, the Institute for Free Speech rates Texas’s anti-SLAPP law as very strong, giving it an A- grade.