The case of Peach v. Hagerman, 2024 WL 1748443 (W.D.Ky., April 23, 2024), involves a social worker in Kentucky who filed a complaint alleging possible child abuse, only to be sued for malicious prosecution and defamation by the accused individual. The social worker sought to have the lawsuit dismissed under Kentucky’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA) which protects the right to file complaints. However, the case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, raising the question of whether Kentucky’s UPEPA applies in federal court.
Federal courts are required to apply the procedural rules of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) when they conflict with state law. In this case, the court had to determine whether the FRCP or Kentucky’s UPEPA should apply to allow for the early dismissal of the defamation case. The U.S. Circuits have different rulings on this issue, with some holding that the FRCP should apply over state Anti-SLAPP laws, while others believe the Anti-SLAPP laws should take precedence.
The district court in this case decided that the FRCP should apply, as it allows for an early dismissal of a claim through a summary judgment motion. However, since discovery had not been completed in this case, the social worker’s motion was ultimately denied. Anti-SLAPP statutes, like the UPEPA, are considered substantive laws that protect individuals from extended litigation when they exercise their free speech rights. Some U.S. Circuits have failed to recognize these statutes as substantive laws, leading to forum shopping by defamation plaintiffs.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were established by the Rules Enabling Act of 1934, which allows the U.S. Supreme Court to enact court rules of procedure. While the Judicial Conference has the authority to amend these rules to better protect free speech defendants from meritless litigation, they have not done so. With Anti-SLAPP legislation proving popular at the state level, pressure for a federal statute will likely continue to grow in the future.
In conclusion, the application of Anti-SLAPP laws in federal courts is currently a mess, as demonstrated by the conflicting rulings in different U.S. Circuits. While Congress has introduced Anti-SLAPP Acts in the past, there has been little progress in enacting a federal law. The issue remains unresolved, and it may ultimately require congressional action to establish consistent application of Anti-SLAPP laws in federal courts.
