Vermont
RJI logo mark

Vermont

Anti-SLAPP protection

Vermont’s anti-SLAPP statute is 12 V.S.A. § 1041.

Law summary

Vermont’s anti-SLAPP law protects written and oral statements in three categories: (1) Those communicated before government bodies, (2) those that are related to concerns being considered by government entities, and (3), matters of public interest.

Legal actions

Vermont’s anti-SLAPP law outlines procedural steps including:

  • Special motion to strike:  A defendant may file a special motion to strike a SLAPP no later than 60 days from when the initial lawsuit was filed.
  • Accelerated hearing: Within 30 days of the defendant’s filing, a court must grant or deny the special motion to strike.
  • Interlocutory appeal: An order granting or denying a special motion to dismiss is appealable.
  • Attorney fees: Upon granting the special motion, a court will award defendants costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. If the court denies the special motion to strike and finds the motion is frivolous or is intended solely to cause unnecessary delay, the court will award costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to the plaintiff.
  • ·Stay of discovery: After a defendant files a special motion, the court will stay all discovery. However, the court may permit limited discovery if the plaintiff demonstrates a good cause.

Helpful cases

The following cases demonstrate a strong cohesion among the Vermont courts in how they evaluate the merits of the anti-SLAPP motion as well as abide by the statute’s articulated procedural steps.

Wolfe v. VT Digger (2023)

One morning in the lobby of the Vermont Statehouse, Kyle Wolfe demanded to speak to the House Speaker. When he did not get his way, he began to scream and eventually was arrested for aggravated disorderly conduct. The Vermont Digger, a local newspaper, published an article describing Wolfe’s threatening conduct toward the House Speaker, which noted Wolfe’s prior criminal conviction and current mental health warrant. Wolfe sued the newspaper for defamation and sought to prohibit the publication from publishing more articles about him as remedy. The newspaper used the state’s anti-SLAPP law, filing a motion to strike. A trial court dismissed Wolfe’s complaint but denied the newsroom’s motion to strike. Both parties appealed and the Supreme Court found that in dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint, the newspaper was consequently entitled to have the complaint stricken and recover attorney’s fees.

Haywood v. St. Michael’s College (2013)

North Carolina politician John Haywood claimed his 2012 presidential campaign was destroyed by a profile written by two student journalists from St. Michael’s College. The then-presidential candidate sued the college and students, who wrote the Haywood profile to fulfill a requirement for a journalism class, for defamation and sought more than half a million dollars in damages. The students and the college filed special motions to strike under Vermont’s anti-SLAPP statute. Haywood opposed the special motion to strike and argued the defendants had no right to an interlocutory appeal because interlocutory appeals only applied in federal courts at that time. In evaluating the merits of the anti-SLAPP motion, the court determined there is no direct conflict between the Vermont anti-SLAPP statute and Federal Court rules, therefore the statute’s provisions could outweigh any conflict with Federal Court procedures. Lastly, the district court ruled Vermont courts should interpret the fee-shifting clause in its anti-SLAPP statute broadly so that the defendants would receive the entirety of their attorney’s fees and costs, extending beyond those solely related to the litigation of the anti-SLAPP motion. Haywood appealed to a circuit court, which affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Bock v. William S. Smith & Northfield News Publishing, LLC (2017)

The Northfield News published a letter to the editor regarding a state House candidate’s criminal history and academic disciplinary record a few days before the 2016 general election. The candidate, Gordon Brock, lost and sued the newspaper and the letter’s author, William Smith, for defamation. The defendants sought to dismiss the lawsuit pursuant to Vermont’s anti-SLAPP statute, to which the candidate did not file a response. He alternatively argued that because he is a public figure, case law protected him from the defendant’s publication that was made with actual malice. A trial court disagreed and granted the defendants’ motion to strike. Brock appealed, writing the trial court did not consider whether the defendants’ motion to strike was frivolous or causing unnecessary delay. An appellate court clarified such analysis is only necessary if the court denies a special motion to strike and upheld the trial court’s ruling.

Legislative activity

Vermont first enacted an anti-SLAPP law in 2005. The law was amended in 2023.

Of note

Vermont received an A rating from the Institute for Free Speech for its anti-SLAPP statute.