������ýapp�ٷ�

For years First Amendment advocates have pushed for Pennsylvania to pass an anti-SLAPP law. A SLAPP is a “Strategic lawsuit against public participation,” and it’s exactly what it sounds like: Instances where individuals or organizations use the legal system to silence speech they don’t like. In other words, it’s censorship by lawsuit.

In 2024, Pennsylvania finally passed a broad anti-SLAPP provision, the . The act creates, in part, immunity for “protected public expression” and a mandatory award of attorneys’ fees and costs for a party forced to defend against a claim from which it is immune.

The new Act is already being tested. In a defamation case brought against Donald Trump in federal court, Trump has argued the lawsuit against him is a SLAPP suit and should be dismissed under Pennsylvania’s Act. The Plaintiffs, meanwhile, have argued that the Act shouldn’t apply in federal court.

The law, however, is clear: Claims brought under Pennsylvania defamation law are still subject to Pennsylvania’s anti-SLAPP law. That’s true even when those claims are brought in federal court. Federal courts must apply state substantive law to state-law claims. That’s what FIREhas argued in a recent friend-of-the court filing joined by eight other organizations who advocate for greater protections for speech. As the amicus brief makes clear, the federal court is bound to apply Pennsylvania’s anti-SLAPP law, regardless of the merits of Plaintiffs’ lawsuit. The court system shouldn’t be used to silence speech, and there shouldn’t be a loophole for SLAPPs that bring state-law claims in federal court.

The amicus brief was authored by Michael Berry and Kaitlin M. Gurney of Ballard Spahr, LLP.