What Is the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act?

The Uniform Public Expression Protection Act is a model anti-SLAPP statute, finalized by the Uniform Law Commission in 2020, that gives a defendant a fast way to end a lawsuit brought to punish them for speaking on a public issue. It works through a special motion that can dismiss the case early, freezes discovery while the motion is pending, and requires the losing plaintiff to pay the defendant’s attorney’s fees. A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or SLAPP, is rarely about winning a judgment; it’s about burying the target in legal costs until they stop speaking. The act is built to cut that strategy off before the costs pile up.

What Speech and Conduct the Act Protects

The act reaches three categories of activity. The first is any communication made during a legislative, executive, judicial, or administrative proceeding. Testimony at a zoning board, a written submission to a licensing agency, or a statement in open court all qualify.¹

The second is communication about an issue under consideration by a governmental body, even when you aren’t formally part of the proceeding. A letter to city council members about a pending ordinance, or an email to a regulatory agency about an enforcement matter, fits here.

The third category is the broadest: exercising rights of free speech, press, assembly, petition, or association on a matter of public concern. The act does not define “public concern” rigidly. The official comments direct courts to follow U.S. Supreme Court precedent, which asks whether the speech relates to a matter of political, social, or other concern to the community, or is a subject of legitimate public interest. Government accountability, public health, environmental safety, and the performance of public officials all clearly fit, and the category can extend further depending on context.¹

All three categories apply to verbal and written communications as well as expressive conduct. Posting an online review of a public official, circulating a petition, organizing a protest, or filing a formal complaint with a state agency can trigger the act’s protections.

When the Act Does Not Apply

Three situations fall outside the special motion process.

Lawsuits against the government. If you sue a government entity or a government employee acting in an official capacity, the defendant cannot use the act to dismiss the case. The protection runs to private speakers, not to government agencies defending themselves from accountability claims.
Government enforcement actions. When a governmental body sues to enforce a law protecting against an imminent threat to public health or safety, the act does not apply. A state attorney general’s enforcement action against a polluter, for example, cannot be blocked by this motion.
Commercial speech. A business primarily engaged in selling or leasing goods or services cannot invoke the act when the lawsuit arises from communications related to those sales. A mattress retailer sued over misleading advertising about its own products falls into this exemption. The same retailer sued for organizing a petition against a proposed school construction project would still be covered, because that speech has nothing to do with selling mattresses.

The commercial speech exemption has a built-in limit. It does not cover the creation, distribution, exhibition, or promotion of dramatic, literary, musical, political, journalistic, or artistic works, even when sold for profit. A filmmaker sued over a documentary or a publisher sued over a book can still use the act.¹

Filing the Special Motion and the Automatic Stay

A defendant has 60 days after being served with the complaint, counterclaim, crossclaim, or other triggering pleading to file the special motion under Section 3. Courts can extend that deadline for good cause.¹

The motion must identify the specific statements or conduct the lawsuit targets and explain why they fall within one of the three protected categories. Supporting evidence usually comes through affidavits or declarations, because discovery is paused once the motion is filed.

That pause is one of the act’s most important features. Section 4 freezes all other proceedings between the parties, including discovery, pending hearings, and other motions, until the court rules on the special motion and the window for an interlocutory appeal expires. Discovery is where SLAPP plaintiffs do the most financial damage, so stopping it quickly is central to the act’s design. If someone appeals, the stay extends to cover all parties in the action until the appeal concludes.¹

Courts have narrow authority to allow limited discovery during the stay. A party must show that specific information is needed to meet a burden under the three-phase analysis and that the information is not reasonably available another way. The official comments describe this as a tool for situations like proving a speaker’s state of mind in a defamation case, where the evidence exists only in the opposing party’s hands.

How the Court Decides the Motion

Section 7 sets up a three-phase analysis that shifts the burden back and forth between the parties. Most of the real argument in a UPEPA motion happens inside this framework.¹

Phase One: Does the Act Apply?

The defendant goes first. The defendant must show that the lawsuit arises from conduct protected under one of the three categories in Section 2. If that showing fails, the motion fails and the case proceeds. If it succeeds, the plaintiff can try to prove that one of the three exemptions applies. If an exemption fits, the motion is denied.

Phase Two: Does the Plaintiff Have a Real Case?

If the motion survives phase one, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case for every essential element of the challenged claim. The plaintiff does not need to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt but must present enough evidence that a reasonable factfinder could rule in their favor. A plaintiff who fails here loses the claim with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled.

Phase Three: Can the Defendant Win as a Matter of Law?

Even if the plaintiff clears phase two, the defendant gets one more opportunity. The defendant must show either that the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The standard mirrors summary judgment. A defendant might argue the claim is barred by the statute of limitations, preempted by another law, or blocked by a prior judgment. A successful showing ends the claim; a failed one sends the case forward.

Hearing, Ruling, and Appeal Timelines

Section 5 requires the court to hold a hearing on the special motion within 60 days of filing. That deadline can slide when the court has allowed limited discovery, or for other good cause. If the extension is tied to discovery, the hearing must take place within 60 days after the court order allowing it.¹

After the hearing, Section 8 gives the court 60 days to issue its ruling. These time limits are bracketed in the model act, so each state can adjust them when it adopts the law. The overall design is to resolve the motion quickly enough that the defendant does not absorb the prolonged cost that makes SLAPPs effective.

If the court denies the motion in whole or in part, Section 9 lets the defendant appeal immediately, without waiting for final judgment. The appeal must be filed within 21 days of the order. The model act explicitly grants this interlocutory right only to the party whose motion was denied, but the official comments clarify that this is not intended to block a plaintiff from appealing an order granting the motion where state procedural rules would otherwise allow it.¹

Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Section 10 makes fee-shifting mandatory, and this is where the act gets its teeth. A defendant who wins the special motion must be awarded court costs, reasonable attorney’s fees, and reasonable litigation expenses. The judge has no discretion to waive the fees or split costs. The official comments call the mandatory approach “integral to the uniformity of the Act” and necessary to prevent states from becoming “safe havens for abusive litigants.”¹

Fees can run the other direction on tougher terms. If the plaintiff defeats the motion and the court finds that the motion was frivolous or filed solely to delay the case, the court must award fees and costs to the plaintiff. The asymmetry is deliberate: a powerful dismissal tool needs a safety valve against abuse of the motion itself. Litigation expenses include the practical costs of litigating the motion, such as copying, postage, expert witnesses, court reporters, and travel.

States That Have Adopted the Act

Washington became the first state to pass a version of the act in May 2021. Kentucky enacted its version in April 2022, and Hawaii followed later that year. Utah’s version took effect in May 2023, and Maine has also enacted the model act.²³

Oregon has updated its existing anti-SLAPP statute so that its protections closely track the UPEPA framework, and New Jersey has adopted provisions modeled on the act. Other states continue to evaluate the act as they consider strengthening or replacing their existing anti-SLAPP protections. Because the exact deadlines, bracketed figures, and procedural details can vary by state, anyone considering a motion should check the version of the law that was actually enacted in their jurisdiction.

1
Media Law Resource Center. Uniform Public Expression Protection Act
2
Maine State Legislature. An Act to Strengthen Freedom of Speech Protections by Enacting the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act
3
Utah Legislature. SB 18 Public Expression Protection Act