The case of Peach v. Hagerman, 2024 WL 1748443, arose from a Kentucky social worker who filed a complaint alleging possible child abuse. The person against whom the claim was made prevailed and then sued the social worker for malicious prosecution and defamation. The social worker filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit under Kentucky’s new Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), asserting her protected right to file the complaint. The lawsuit had been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, raising a question as to whether Kentucky’s UPEPA even applied in federal court.
The U.S. legal system has federal and state courts, with federal courts applying state law in diversity jurisdiction cases. However, federal courts have their own rules, known as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). When the FRCP conflicts with state law, the Supreme Court rules that the FRCP should apply. The district court in this case had to determine if the Kentucky UPEPA should apply for an early dismissal of the plaintiff’s defamation case, or if the FRCP should allow for discovery before dismissal.
There is a split among U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals on whether the FRCP or state anti-SLAPP laws should apply. The district court determined that the FRCP already provides a procedure for dismissal, so it should apply instead of the Kentucky UPEPA. Since summary judgment should not be granted until after discovery, the social worker’s motion was denied.
Anti-SLAPP statutes, like the UPEPA, are substantive laws that protect individuals from extended litigation as a result of their exercise of free speech rights. Although Anti-SLAPP laws operate procedurally, they protect substantive rights and prevent the impairment of First Amendment rights. Some U.S. Circuits have failed to recognize this, leading to forum shopping by defamation plaintiffs in federal court to avoid state Anti-SLAPP laws.
At the federal level, the Judicial Conference is responsible for creating the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. While amendments to FRCP 12 could better protect free speech defendants, federal judges have historically been reluctant to make changes. Congressional action may be necessary to address the application of Anti-SLAPP laws in federal courts, as legislative proposals on this issue have not progressed in Congress.
Pressure for a federal Anti-SLAPP statute may continue to grow, especially as a majority of states have adopted their own Anti-SLAPP legislation. However, this case highlights the challenges and inconsistencies in applying Anti-SLAPP laws at the federal level, underscoring the need for potential legislative action to address these issues.
