Texas legislation reforming anti-SLAPP law concerns free speech advocates
Free speech advocates in Texas are warning about new bills being considered in the state that they say would weaken protections for ordinary citizens and journalists against intimidating lawsuits.
Lawsuits launched by powerful and deep-pocketed interests for the purpose of silencing and effectively harassing people exercising free speech rights are known as SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation). The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press describes SLAPPs as being filed "for intimidating and silencing criticism through expensive, baseless legal proceedings."
The 2011 Texas Citizens Participation Act was passed as a way to empower defendants against such suits, advocates say, but now they say it's under attack in a threat to free speech across the political spectrum.
The current law affords defendants who feel they are the victims of unfair SLAPP lawsuits to move to quickly dismiss them and be awarded attorneys' fees if successful. HB 2988, which is set to proceed to a hearing on Wednesday in the state's House Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence committee, is being criticized as a way to gut the TCPA.
"Any time someone exposes an uncomfortable truth or an opposing view, they can easily be a SLAPP victim, and these laws are the only things that give them power against the bullies in the courtroom," First Amendment attorney Laura Prather told Fox News Digital.
"It's a form of judicial harassment, where you're really just trying to lock somebody up in a lengthy legal battle because they expressed an opinion that you didn't like or they exposed wrongdoing that you didn't like," she added.
In journalism, anti-SLAPP laws are meant to protect journalists from being besieged by defamation or other lawsuits as a means of intimidation, given the expense and difficulty involved in being wrapped up in lengthy court proceedings.
Under the TCPA, a speaker who had been sued in a SLAPP case that was dismissed would receive attorney's fees and costs, and the law also allowed the court to award sanctions against the plaintiff. However, HB 2988 would make the awarding of attorney's fees discretionary instead of mandatory, and potentially put a defendant on the hook for the plaintiff's legal fees at a judge's discretion.
The TCPA also includes an automatic stay of discovery, meaning defendants using its protections can avoid the arduous and intrusive process of exchanging information, documents and other materials before a trial. SB 336, which has an identical companion bill in the House, HB 2459, would repeal that provision that stays discovery and trial in a SLAPP case "until such time that an appeals court has ruled, if asked to do so, on an anti-SLAPP motion," according to an article in the Institute for Free Speech.
"If this bill passes, anyone targeted by a SLAPP lawsuit in Texas will have to battle in trial court and appeal court simultaneously," conservative commentator Ben Ferguson wrote about SB 336 in Human Events. "That's not just a procedural change—it's a death sentence for small media outlets, grassroots conservatives, and people like me who rely on that protection to survive the legal attacks hurled our way."
"The TCPA protects Texans across the ideological spectrum, from grassroots activists to government watchdogs to on-line reviewers," James Bopp, general counsel of the National Right to Life Committee, wrote last week. "Weakening the TCPA would embolden litigious corporations, political operatives, and deep-pocketed individuals to use the courts as a cudgel against their opponents. The impact would be devastating not just for those sued, but for the fundamental principles of free speech and open debate in Texas."
Supporters of the proposals say the anti-SLAPP law can be used mischievously to gum up court proceedings and delay litigation on matters unrelated to free speech. The Texas Tribune reported on one example involving a contractor who filed an anti-SLAPP motion to halt a case brought by a developer over an apartment construction project. The contractor froze the case a month before trial even though the motion was eventually ruled to be frivolous, and the developer's lawyer said the delay cost his client millions.
"This is a perfect example where a shield has become an abusive sword," Republican State Rep. Jeff Leach said during a hearing on similar legislation to reform the TCPA in 2023.
Fox News Digital reached out to Republican Texas State Sen. Bryan Hughes and Republican State Rep. Mano DeAyala, the respective sponsors of SB 336 and HB 2988, for comment.
DeAyala has accused critics of misrepresenting his bill's goals, responding to one that he's specifically trying to protect the TCPA.
"The TCPA as intended is alive and well and especially the scenario in your post," he wrote last week to someone saying his bill would kill the TCPA. "The bill does not change that. It simply provides some protection to the little guy from the bullies who misuse and abuse the TCPA."
In another post in February, he said the TCPA had good intentions, but he was trying to keep bad-faith actors from manipulating it.
Advocates for the TCPA say the protections therein cut across the political spectrum; a liberal journalist or activist organization would benefit just as much as a conservative one from being able to speak out with less fear of reprisal. They also reject the notion that the reform bills being considered would clean up court overcrowding, saying it could have the reverse effect.
"They may not sue you to begin with," Prather told Fox News Digital, giving examples like restaurants suing patrons for bad online reviews. "It serves as a deterrent against those bullies that want to use the courtroom to silence you. It's a huge deterrent, and that's really important."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Bill C-5 passes in the House, as Carney vows to consult Indigenous groups
OTTAWA — Facing concerns and warnings of Indigenous resistance against a key part of his governing agenda, Prime Minister Mark Carney acknowledged Friday that 'more fulsome conversations are needed' to choose the development projects his government wants to fast-track through controversial new legislation, Bill C-5. Speaking moments after the bill passed third reading in the House of Commons, Carney pledged to hold meetings in the coming weeks with First Nations, Inuit and Métis leaders and experts in a series of summits to 'launch the implementation of this legislation in the right way' in 'full partnership' with Indigenous communities. This will be the 'first step' in the process to choose which projects will be chosen through the new legislation for the fast-track to approval within the government's goal of two years. The Liberal government's major projects bill has passed the House of Commons thanks to help from the Conservative Party. Prime Minister Mark Carney calls the legislation the core of his government's domestic economic response to U.S. tariffs (June 20, 2025 / The Canadian Press) Carney also repeated pledges earlier this week, as the Liberal government rammed the bill through the House over the objections of some Indigenous , environmental groups and opposition parties, that the new process will respect Indigenous rights to consultation and 'free, prior and informed consent' under the United Nations Declaration to the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The government House Leader said this week they expect the bill to pass in the Senate next week. 'These projects will be built with Indigenous nations and communities. This is not an aspiration. It is the plan embedded in the bill itself,' Carney said Friday. 'We all agree that more fulsome conversations are needed to select the nation-building projects and to determine the conditions that they must fulfil. In other words, the real work begins now.' In the April 28 election, Carney's Liberals won a minority government while promising to fast-track development projects like mines, pipelines and ports to boost economic growth, make Canada a 'superpower' in clean power and fossil fuels, and reduce reliance on the United States that has imposed a series of tariffs on Canadian goods. Carney acknowledged the bill sailed through the Commons quickly, but argued Friday that speed was needed to confront the 'crisis' of the American trade war. 'This is the response. This is us being in charge of our destiny. That's why we pushed it,' Carney said. Indigenous Services Minister Mandy Gull-Masty — a former grand chief of Eeyou Istchee in Quebec — said the promised summits are a 'serious signal' that Indigenous communities are going to be 'at the table' in deciding how projects will be chosen under the new process. 'There have been more projects selected. It is something that we will define together,' she said. The bill passed through the House of Commons Friday in two votes, after House Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia ruled to split the legislation into two parts. All parties supported a less contentious section to lift federal barriers to trade and labour movement inside Canada. The other, more controversial part dealing with major projects also passed with Liberals and Conservatives voting en masse in favour, and Bloc Québécois, NDP and Green MPs voting against. Toronto Liberal and former cabinet minister MP Nate Erskine-Smith also voted against the national projects part of the legislation . The version of the bill now moving to the Senate came with a suite of amendments, including some that the government supported, aimed at increasing transparency and restricting some of the powers the legislation would create. This includes a provision to obtain the written consent of affected provinces and territories before the government chooses to fast-track a given project, and to ensure the new process that the law would create respects ethics rules and can't override legislation like the Indian Act. The changes also created a new requirement for the government to publish a suite of information about the projects — from the contents of any studies and assessments about their impacts, to all recommendations about them from the civil service — at least 30 days before it officially puts them into the fast-track process. Business groups like the Canadian Chamber of Commerce have also supported the legislation, arguing that a thicket of government regulations has delayed major projects, and that there is now an urgent need to build new infrastructure for energy, critical minerals and other sectors. But Bill C-5 remains controversial, including with predictions this week from some Indigenous leaders that it could inspire resistance and protest like the 2012 'Idle No More' movement because of a lack of consultation on the new powers. MPs have also condemned the national projects part of the legislation as a troubling expansion of power that risks trampling environmental protections and Indigenous rights. After the amendments Friday, the bill retained its proposal to allow the cabinet to choose projects to fast-track based on 'any factor' it considers relevant, and to skirt laws like the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and Species at Risk Act when reviewing projects to speed up. 'This legislation is an abomination and one that will be a stain on the reputation of this government and of our prime minister. As a first effort to lead this country, it's a bad effort,' said Green Leader Elizabeth May. Bloc MP Sébastien Lemire accused the government of reproducing the 'condescending and colonialist spirit' of the last century towards Canada's Indigenous Peoples. And Don Davies, the NDP's interim leader, alleged the bill creates 'Henry VIII' powers that allow the government 'to override laws by decree. 'It guts environmental protections, undermines workers and threatens Indigenous rights,' Davies said. 'This bill will end up in court.'
2 hours ago
GOP's food stamp plan is found to violate Senate rules. It's the latest setback for Trump's big bill
WASHINGTON -- In another blow to the Republicans' tax and spending cut bill, the Senate parliamentarian has advised that a proposal to shift some food stamps costs from the federal government to states — a centerpiece of GOP savings efforts — would violate the chamber's rules. While the parliamentarian's rulings are advisory, they are rarely, if ever, ignored. The Republican leadership was scrambling on Saturday, days before voting is expected to begin on President Donald Trump's package that he wants to be passed into law by the Fourth of July. The loss is expected to be costly to Republicans. They have been counting on some tens of billions of potential savings from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, to help offset the costs of the $4.5 trillion tax breaks plan. The parliamentarian let stand for now a provision that would impose new work requirements for older Americans, up to age 65, to receive food stamp aid. 'We will keep fighting to protect families in need,' said Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, which handles the SNAP program. 'The Parliamentarian has made clear that Senate Republicans cannot use their partisan budget to shift major nutrition assistance costs to the states that would have inevitably led to major cuts,' she said. The committee chairman, Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark., said in a statement that his team is examining options that would comply with Senate rules to achieve savings and "to ensure SNAP serves those who truly need it while being responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars.' The parliamentarian's ruling is the latest in a series of setbacks as staff works through the weekend, often toward midnight, to assess the 1,000-page proposal. It all points to serious trouble ahead for the bill, which was approved by the House on a party-line vote last month over unified opposition from Democrats and is now undergoing revisions in the Senate. At its core, the goal of the multitrillion-dollar package is to extend tax cuts from Trump's first term that would otherwise expire if Congress fails to act. It also adds new ones, including no taxes on tips or overtime pay. To help offset the costs of lost tax revenue, the Republicans are proposing cutbacks to federal Medicaid, health care and food programs — some $1 trillion. Additionally, the package boosts national security spending by about $350 billion, including to pay for Trump's mass deportations, which are running into protests nationwide. Trump has implored Republicans, who have the majority in Congress, to deliver on his top domestic priority, but the details of the package, with its hodgepodge of priorities, is drawing deeper scrutiny. All told, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the package, as approved by the House, would add at least $2.4 trillion to the nation's red ink over the decade and leave 10.9 million more people without health care coverage. Additionally, it would reduce or eliminate food stamps for more than 3 million people. The parliamentarian's office is tasked with scrutinizing the bill to ensure it complies with the so-called Byrd Rule, which is named after the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd, and bars many policy matters in the budget reconciliation process now being used. Late Friday, the parliamentarian issued its latest findings. It determined that Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee's proposal to have the states pick up more of the tab for covering food stamps — what Republicans call a new cost-sharing arrangement — would be in violation of the Byrd Rule. Many lawmakers said the states would not be able to absorb the new requirement on food aid, which has long been provided by the federal government. They warned many would lose access to SNAP benefits used by more than 40 million people. Initially, the CBO had estimated about $128 billion in savings under the House's proposal to shift SNAP food aid costs to the states. Cost estimates for the Senate's version, which made changes to the House approach, have not yet been made publicly available. The parliamentarian's office rulings leave GOP leaders with several options. They can revise the proposals to try to comply with Senate rules or strip them from the package altogether. They can also risk a challenge during floor voting, which would require the 60-vote threshold to overcome. That would be unlikely in the split chamber with Democrats opposing the overall package. The parliamentarian's latest advice also said the committee's provision to make certain immigrants ineligible for food stamps would violate the rule. It found several provisions from the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, which is led by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to be in violation. They include one to provide $250 million to Coast Guard stations damaged by fire in 2025, namely one on South Padre Island in Texas. Still to come are some of the most important rulings from the parliamentarian. One will assess the GOP's approach that relies on 'current policy' rather than 'current law' as the baseline for determining whether the bill will add to the nation's deficits. Already, the parliamentarian delivered a serious setback Thursday, finding that the GOP plan to gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was a core proposal coming from the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, would be in violation of the Byrd Rule. The parliamentarian has also advised of violations over provisions from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that would rollback Environmental Protection Agency emissions standards on certain vehicles and from the Senate Armed Services Committee to require the defense secretary to provide a plan on how the Pentagon intends to spend the tens of billions of new funds. The new work requirements in the package would require many of those receiving SNAP or Medicaid benefits to work 80 hours a month or engage in other community or educational services.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Sunday shows preview: GOP megabill faces ‘big, beautiful' road bumps; all eyes turn to Trump on Iran
Congress remains at a standstill in regard to President Trump's 'big, beautiful' bill touted as a rite of passage for tax cuts, child credits and the country's future, and the clock is ticking on Trump's timeline for a decision on whether the U.S. will involve itself in the Iran-Israel conflict. These topics are among those likely to be a focus of this week's Sunday shows. House Republicans are tied to their legislative text, which outlines a three-year boost for child tax credit at $2,500 per child, while senators are considering a more modest approach marked at $2,200 per child. However, the GOP stands divided by standards for state and local tax deductions. The House's proposed cap at $40,000 per household with incomes of less than $500,000 is facing scrutiny from senators who are pushing for the cap to stay at $10,000. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.), who sits on the Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight, will likely address his proposed change to the bill during an appearance on Fox News' 'Sunday Morning Futures.' Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) will also likely lobby for the bill's passage during an appearance on Fox News's 'Fox News Sunday.' Lee has lauded portions of the bill that would include the sale of public land as Western conservatives urge leaders to cede lands to local control. 'Washington has proven time and again it can't manage this land. This bill puts it in better hands,' Lee said last Thursday. However, his colleagues in the House have pushed back on the measure amid the Senate's proposed rollback of green energy tax credits and other environmental clauses. 'My main takeaway for you guys is this bill, as the Senate has produced it, is definitely dead if it were to come over to the House in anything resembling its current form,' Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), a vocal member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, told reporters on a press call. His comments detail a shaky future for the legislation Republicans have set an objective to pass before the Fourth of July. Still, amid the clamor, the Trump administration has worked to gain traction with citizens across the country by promoting the bill's 'Trump account' caveat, which ensures an investment account funded by the Treasury Department. However, Senate Democrats are stifled by Medicaid cuts expanded in the bill's new text authored by the upper chamber. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) will likely speak to party members' concerns during show appearances on CBS' 'Face the Nation' and Fox News 'Fox News Sunday.' Kaine is also likely to draw attention to the Pentagon's decision to rename several military bases across the country, including those in his home state. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem is also likely to chime in on the bill which is slated to increase manpower for immigration operations at the southern border. Noem has been at the helm of the Trump administration's crackdown on illegal immigrants, an effort which has stemmed protests and outrage in cities like Los Angeles. Trump sent thousands of National Guard soldiers and hundreds of Marines to Los Angeles against the wishes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D). Their long-embroiled rivalry heated up when Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) was forcibly removed from Noem's presser last week where he was handcuffed and wrestled to the ground. Padilla is one of several Democratic lawmakers to either be handcuffed, detained or arrested amid a broader push to conduct oversight on immigration policies. Noem may speak to Democrats' repeated run-ins with federal authorities during an appearance on CNN's 'State of the Union' and Fox News' 'Fox News Sunday.' The home front clashes come during Trump's potential involvement in Middle Eastern discourse between Iran and Israel. Israeli officials confirmed numerous strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities Saturday and throughout the week resulting in the deaths of top commanders and engineers furthering their effort to shut down the development of larger weapons. Iran has pledged not to back down from war with the American ally and retaliated against bombings with a series of UAV attacks on Friday night. Israel said many of their drones were intercepted and ultimately ineffective due to Iron Dome technology. Trump is considering advancing U.S. involvement in the war and has issued a two-week timeline for a decision to intervene. The Pentagon reportedly moved B-2 bombers to the island of Guam on Saturday for standby operations as the president weighs the outcome of strikes on Iran. See the full list of Sunday shows below: NewsNation 'The Hill Sunday:' Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.); Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) ABC's 'This Week:' Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) CNN's 'State of the Union:' Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem; Sen. Adam Schiff, (D-Calif.); Israeli President Isaac Herzog; former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton; Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson NBC's 'Meet the Press:' Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) CBS' 'Face the Nation:' Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.); Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Yechiel Leiter; Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.); Thomas Massie (R-Ky.); retired Gen. Frank McKenzie, former commander of U.S. Central Command Fox News'Fox News Sunday:' Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem; Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.); Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) Fox News 'Sunday Morning Futures:' Tom Homan, Border Czar; Matthew Whitaker, U.S. Ambassador To NATO; Gov. Ron Desantis (R-Fla.), Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.)
