Roughly 40 states and the District of Columbia have anti-SLAPP laws on the books, but the strength of those protections varies enormously from one state to the next. Anti-SLAPP laws by state fall into three rough tiers: broad statutes that cover virtually any speech on a matter of public concern and award mandatory attorney fees (California, Texas, New York), narrow statutes that only protect speech in specific settings like permit proceedings or public hearings (Nebraska, Missouri, New Mexico, Maryland), and no statute at all in about ten states. Where you’re sued determines whether you can knock out a meritless lawsuit in weeks or spend a year grinding through discovery before a judge ever looks at the merits.
What Makes an Anti-SLAPP Law Strong or Weak
A SLAPP, or Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, is a suit filed to silence a critic through the cost and stress of litigation rather than to win on the merits. Anti-SLAPP statutes exist to short-circuit that strategy. Three features determine how much real protection a state’s law gives you.
The first is scope: does the statute protect speech on any matter of public concern, or only speech directed at government bodies? The second is the discovery stay. Strong statutes freeze depositions, document demands, and interrogatories the moment the motion is filed, which cuts off the expensive phase of litigation that SLAPP plaintiffs rely on to inflict damage. California’s statute is explicit that all discovery is stayed until the court rules on the motion.1California Legislative Information. California Code of Civil Procedure CCP 425.16 The third is fee shifting. Statutes that make attorney fees mandatory for prevailing defendants have real teeth; statutes that leave fees to judicial discretion let SLAPP plaintiffs walk away without consequence even after losing.
The mechanics also work in two stages almost everywhere. The defendant first shows the suit targets protected activity. If that threshold is cleared, the plaintiff has to show the underlying claim actually has legal merit. A plaintiff who can’t make that showing loses the case right there. Filing deadlines are tight: Massachusetts gives defendants 60 days from service of the complaint, with judicial discretion to allow later filings,2General Court of Massachusetts. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 231 Section 59H and most UPEPA states follow a similar window. Miss the deadline and you forfeit the mechanism.
States with Broad Anti-SLAPP Protections
Broad anti-SLAPP statutes cover speech on any matter of public concern, not just speech aimed at government bodies, and courts in these states interpret “public concern” generously.
California
California’s anti-SLAPP law, codified at Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16, is the oldest and most litigated in the country. It covers any act in furtherance of the right of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue, and the statute explicitly directs courts to construe its protections broadly. California courts have applied it to online consumer reviews, neighborhood listserv complaints about businesses, journalist reporting, and private conversations touching on matters of public interest. Prevailing defendants recover attorney fees as a matter of right.1California Legislative Information. California Code of Civil Procedure CCP 425.16
Texas
The Texas Citizens Participation Act protects three categories: the right of free speech (any communication on a matter of public concern), the right to petition government, and the right of association. Courts have held that private as well as public statements qualify, so long as the subject is a public concern. Texas also mandates fee awards to prevailing defendants.
New York
New York overhauled its framework in 2020, transforming a narrow law into one of the strongest in the country. Civil Rights Law § 76-a now defines “public interest” as any subject other than a purely private matter, which is an extremely broad net. The statute also imposes a heightened burden on plaintiffs: to recover damages in a case involving public petition and participation, the plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s communication was made with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.3New York State Senate. New York Civil Rights Law 76-A – Actions Involving Public Petition and Participation That standard imports the actual malice test from defamation law into all SLAPP claims and makes New York one of the hardest places in the country to survive an anti-SLAPP motion as a plaintiff.
States with Narrow Anti-SLAPP Protections
Several states have statutes on the books that sound protective but limit coverage so tightly that most speech falls outside them.
Nebraska
Nebraska’s statute is among the most restrictive in the country. It applies only to speech by applicants, permittees, and people materially connected to a public entitlement at issue. A citizen criticizing a local business on a review site or speaking out about school board policy finds no protection because the law is tied to permit and application proceedings, not public discourse generally.
Missouri and New Mexico
Missouri and New Mexico confine their anti-SLAPP protections to speech made in connection with a public hearing or public meeting. Testify at a zoning board meeting and get sued for it, you’re covered. Post the same criticism on social media the next morning and the statute likely won’t help.
Maryland
Maryland narrows its law a different way. Rather than limiting the type of speech, it requires the defendant to show that the lawsuit was brought in bad faith and intended to inhibit the exercise of First Amendment rights. Proving a plaintiff’s subjective motivation is a steep climb, especially before discovery has begun. The requirement can render the anti-SLAPP motion nearly as difficult as litigating the merits.
States with No Anti-SLAPP Law
About ten states have no dedicated anti-SLAPP statute at all. As of early 2026, the holdouts include Alabama, Alaska, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Defendants in those states must rely on standard procedural tools: a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim or a motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 or its state equivalent.4Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56 – Summary Judgment
Those tools are slow. A motion to dismiss doesn’t pause discovery, so the plaintiff can keep running up legal bills while the motion sits on the court’s calendar. Summary judgment typically can’t be filed until after discovery closes, often more than a year into the case. There’s also no automatic recovery of attorney fees. The entire financial burden stays on the person being sued, which is the whole point of a SLAPP. Journalists, neighborhood activists, and small business owners in these states face the greatest exposure.
States That Have Adopted UPEPA
The patchwork has prompted a push toward standardization through the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, drafted by the Uniform Law Commission. As of early 2026, 16 states have enacted a version of UPEPA, including Washington, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Ohio, Idaho, Montana, Iowa, Delaware, Michigan, and South Dakota (effective July 1, 2026). Adoption has accelerated noticeably since 2024.
UPEPA gives states a turnkey framework with the procedural safeguards that older statutes developed piecemeal. Two features stand out. Filing the motion automatically stays all proceedings between the parties, including discovery, until the court rules and the time for appeal expires. And the defendant can appeal a denial of the motion as a matter of right, rather than having to seek permission for an interlocutory appeal.5Uniform Law Commission. Uniform Public Expression Protection Act UPEPA also mandates court costs, reasonable attorney fees, and litigation expenses for prevailing moving parties, and allows a plaintiff to recover fees if the court finds the motion itself was frivolous or filed solely to delay.
Anti-SLAPP Motions in Federal Court
Even in a state with a strong anti-SLAPP law, you may not get to use it if your case ends up in federal court through diversity jurisdiction. Federal appeals courts are split, and no Supreme Court decision has resolved the disagreement.
The First and Ninth Circuits allow defendants to file state anti-SLAPP motions in federal diversity cases, finding no conflict with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Second, Fifth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits have held that anti-SLAPP special motions conflict with Federal Rules 12 and 56 and are inapplicable in federal court. The Ninth Circuit has also held that a denied anti-SLAPP motion qualifies as a collateral order subject to immediate interlocutory appeal, a position most other circuits reject.6GovInfo. Martinez v. ZoomInfo Technologies, Inc. If you’re sued in federal court in California or Massachusetts, you can file a state anti-SLAPP motion and get the discovery stay. The same case in federal court in New York or Texas likely leaves you stuck with standard federal motions.
What Anti-SLAPP Laws Do Not Cover
Most broad anti-SLAPP statutes carve out commercial speech so businesses cannot weaponize the law against competitors or consumers. California’s exemption is the most detailed: the statute does not apply to claims against a person primarily engaged in selling or leasing goods or services when the challenged statement is a factual representation about the business’s own or a competitor’s products, aimed at buyers or potential customers.7California Legislative Information. California Code of Civil Procedure 425.17 Texas, Oklahoma, and the District of Columbia have similar carve-outs. California further exempts media organizations and nonprofits that receive most of their funding from government sources from the commercial carve-out, preserving their full anti-SLAPP protection even when their speech touches on commercial subjects.
The practical takeaway for anyone comparing state protections: the label “anti-SLAPP law” tells you very little by itself. The scope of covered speech, whether discovery is stayed, whether fees are mandatory, and whether the law survives removal to federal court all matter more than the statute’s existence. A defendant in California or New York facing a SLAPP has powerful tools available within days. A defendant in Alabama or Wisconsin facing the same lawsuit has essentially the same options as any other civil litigant, which is to say, a long and expensive road.