Simon PLC Attorneys & Counselors – November 2026 Memorandum
A MICHIGAN MILESTONE-39TH STATE TO ADOPT ANTI-SLAPP PROTECTIONS
“Public participation in the process of government is the essence of democracy.”
Lyndon Baines Johnson, Message to Congress, May 25, 1967
Troy, MI. The first U.S. state to enact an anti-SLAPP statute was in 1992, thirty four years later, Michigan has become the 39th state in the nation to enact a comprehensive statute protecting residents from abusive litigation known as strategic lawsuits against public participation or “SLAPPs”– lawsuits commenced solely to silence free speech guised under defamation, privacy or nuisance claims. House Bill 4045 passed unanimously through the House of Representative (by 103-0 vote) and the Senate (by 36-0 vote), was signed into law by Governor Gretchen Whitmer on December 23, 2025 and became effective March 24, 2026 (Public Act 52 of 2025). By adopting the anti-SLAPP legislation, a version of the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (“UPEPA”), Michigan residents that find themselves as defendants in a SLAPP lawsuit, often viewed as “retaliatory lawsuits intended to silence, intimidate, or punish those who have used public forums to speak, petition, or otherwise move for government action on an issue,” now have access to expedited relief for dismissal and fee recovery.
The purpose and intent of the anti-SLAPP statute is to encourage Michigan residents to vigorously participate in government without the fear of retributive and abusive SLAPP suits. Moreover, this legislation is also to be broadly construed and applied to protect the exercise of the right of freedom of speech and of the press, the right to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the right of association, guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the state constitution of 1963. See MCL §691.1861.new (2025).
Under the statute, the burden of such litigation is shifted on to the party bringing the lawsuit. A party that is the target of a SLAPP suit, can immediately file for expedited relief within 60 days of being served with the lawsuit. See MCL §691.1853.new (2025) The filing of such motion immediately triggers protections for the party that is the focus of such suit-
- Immediate Stay– Except under limited circumstances, all other proceedings between the parties, including discovery and a pending hearing or motion, are stayed and remains stayed if a party appeals an order ruling on this motion. See MCL §691.1854.new (2025)
- Expedited Judicial Review– The Court must then hear the motion within 60 days after it is filed [see MCL§691.1855.new (2025)] and must rule on the motion no later than 60 days after the hearing. See MCL§ 691.1858.new (2025)
- Standard of Review. Uniquely, courts may consider the pleadings, the motion, any reply or response to the motion, affidavits, depositions, admissions, or other documentary evidence. See MCL§691.1856.new. This extends well beyond what courts typically consider in a standard motion to dismiss. Moreover, in ruling on such a motion, if the moving party is successful, the court shall dismiss with prejudice the action or part of the action under certain circumstances.
- Recovery of Attorney Fees and Costs. The court shall award the moving party’s court costs, reasonable attorney fees, and reasonable litigation expenses if the court finds that the plaintiffs filed a meritless suit and lost the anti-SLAPP motion. A voluntary dismissal without or with prejudice of a responding party’s action, or part of an action does not affect a moving party’s right to obtain a ruling on the motion and seek costs, attorney fees, and expenses. See MCL§691.1857.new (2025) and MCL§691.1860.new (2025)
- Appeal as of Right. A moving party may appeal as a matter of right from an order denying, in whole or in part, such motion no later than 21 days after entry of the order. See MCL §691.1859.new (2025)
While the anti-SLAPP statute provides that it should be interpreted and applied broadly to protect the exercise of constitutional rights, it does exempt certain lawsuits. The statute does exempt suits against people primarily engaged in the business of selling or leasing goods or services if the communications at issue are related to that business. See MCL §691.1852(2)(a).new (2025). Furthermore, the anti-SLAPP legislation also exempts suits brought under a specific list of civil rights, employment, and labor statutes, including Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, the Person with Disabilities Civil Rights Act, the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act, the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act, FOIA, Federal Title VII, Title IX the ADEA, the ADA, the FMLA, and the FLSA. See MCL §691.1852(2)(b)(i)-(xi)new (2025). That is, employers cannot use a motion under the anti-SLAPP legislation to dismiss a discrimination, retaliation, or wage claim, even in matters where the underlying facts involve speech or petitioning.
In short, the anti-SLAPP statute represents a shift in Michigan state court procedure by allowing a defendant to invoke the antiSLAPP process when the plaintiff’s claim is premised on the defendant’s exercise of constitutional rights based on freedom of speech, triggering expedited dismissal and feeshifting protections under the statute. Prospective plaintiffs and their counsels should conduct expansive pre-suit diligence and investigation in anticipation that they must now be prepared to support their claims with evidence shortly after filing a complaint because failing to do so will result in them paying the opposing party’s fees.
Simon PLC Attorneys & Counselors will continue to monitor any developments as the courts begin to interpret and apply the new anti-SLAPP statute.1
- According to the SLAPP Back Initiative and other legal sources, California was the first state to pass a strong antiSLAPP law in 1992.
↩︎ - Allowing additional evidence normally not considered in a motion to dismiss, raises issues in light of the recent Supreme Court’s recent decision in Berk v. Choy, 607 U. S. _____(2026). In Berk, the Court held that a Delaware state requirement that plaintiffs present evidence supporting their claims at the motion-to-dismiss stage was unenforceable in federal court (in Berk, the plaintiff failed to attach an affidavit of merit by a medical professional to his malpractice complaint). In an opinion written by Justice Barrett, the Court observed that under Federal Rules 8 and 12, “evidence of the claim is not required,” so a state law requiring such evidence conflicted with the federal rules. Likewise, allowing evidence beyond the pleadings in an anti-Slapp motion to dismiss in federal cases will likely draw challenges by the plaintiff in cases in federal court. ↩︎
N.B. Not Legal Advice: Please contact us if you would like to discuss the facts and circumstances of your specific matter. Simon PLC Attorneys & Counselors expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any or all the contents of this memorandum. The information contained herein may not reflect current legal developments and is provided without any knowledge as to the recipient’s location, industry, identity or specific circumstances. No recipients of this content, clients or otherwise, should act, or refrain from acting, on the basis of any content included in this memorandum without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from an attorney licensed in the jurisdiction for which the recipient’s legal issue(s) involve. The application and impact of relevant laws varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and our attorneys do not seek to practice law in states, territories and foreign countries where they are not properly authorized to do so.2
