(North Dakota Monitor) – A bill to protect people from getting dragged through court for exercising their free speech could go before North Dakota lawmakers in January.
Sometimes people who speak out in the public interest are targeted by frivolous lawsuits intended to waste their time and money, and ultimately to silence them. This legal tactic is often referred to as a strategic lawsuit against public participation, or SLAPP.
Most states have passed laws designed to keep those kinds of cases out of the courts, though North Dakota is not one of them.
A group of state leaders has recommended that the Legislature change that.
Members of North Dakota’s delegation to the national Uniform Law Commission told the North Dakota Monitor they don’t feel SLAPP suits are an issue in North Dakota. But given most other states have already passed anti-SLAPP legislation, North Dakota may be at risk for attracting them, they said.
The issue has already come up in the ongoing legal battle between the developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline and the environmental group Greenpeace.
A policy drafted by the commission could help ensure the state doesn’t become a safe haven for frivolous lawsuits meant to curb free speech, said North Dakota Supreme Court Justice Jerod Tufte, who chairs the state delegation.
“I don’t know that we want to wait until we have a big problem,” he said.
The Uniform Law Commission looks for areas where it could be beneficial for states to work together on state policy, including by writing model legislation for states to adopt. It drafted the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act in 2020 with the goal of making anti-SLAPP legislation stronger and more cohesive across the country.
“Many of these uniform acts have greater value when they are, in fact, uniform and adopted by most states,” Tufte said.
The North Dakota delegation of the commission this summer voted to recommend that state lawmakers adopt the act. If the 2027 Legislature passes the proposal, it would give state courts an official procedure for dealing with potential SLAPP cases.
Defendants who feel they are being sued in retaliation for their free speech would be able to formally request for the case to be dismissed at the outset of the lawsuit. The law would require that defendants provide evidence backing up their claim, and plaintiffs would have an opportunity to show that their suit is legitimate and legally viable.
If someone is found to have brought a frivolous lawsuit under the act, they have to pay the defendant’s legal expenses.
“It all happens very fast, considering the way litigation usually goes,” said Republican state Rep. Lawrence Klemin, another member of North Dakota’s Uniform Law Commission. “It’s an expeditious way of getting that kind of lawsuit thrown out of court.”
Seventeen states have adopted the Uniform Law Commission’s act since 2020, according to the organization’s website, and more states have adopted similar legislation.
Those states have reported a “high degree of satisfaction” with the law, said Lane Shetterly, a former Oregon lawmaker who led the group that drafted the act. Shetterly said he’s not aware of any that have faced any major issues implementing it.
A range of organizations have expressed support for the policy, including the American Civil Liberties Union, National Right to Life Committee and a handful of First Amendment rights groups.
Greenpeace has alleged that the North Dakota lawsuit brought against it by the developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline is a SLAPP, though the court has not weighed in on this claim.
Energy Transfer claims Greenpeace is at fault for encouraging anti-pipeline protesters to damage its property near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in 2016 and 2017 and for orchestrating a campaign to defame the company to the public. Greenpeace alleges that Energy Transfer’s claims are baseless and that the suit is a ploy to harm the environmental movement. A Morton County jury in March 2025 sided with Energy Transfer in the case, a verdict Greenpeace has said it will appeal.
The judge in that lawsuit, Southwest Judicial District Judge James Gion, has ruled that he cannot evaluate whether the case is a SLAPP because North Dakota does not have legislation recognizing the legal tactic. Greenpeace’s global affiliate, Greenpeace International, has countersued Energy Transfer in the Netherlands under a European Union directive outlawing SLAPP lawsuits.
Tufte said that members of North Dakota’s delegation to the Uniform Law Commission are aware that the state’s lack of anti-SLAPP legislation has been brought up in the Greenpeace case, though he said the commission has not discussed the lawsuit much.
Shetterly said while he isn’t familiar with the particulars of Energy Transfer’s case against Greenpeace, he said the group had organizations like Greenpeace in mind when it was drafting the legislation.
“We did talk generally about Greenpeace as an organization that is susceptible to SLAPP,” he said. “Lawful protest and speech are exactly the kinds of things that an anti-SLAPP statute is designed to protect and avoid years of litigation to resolve.”
Members of the media can also be vulnerable to these kinds of legal tactics, Shetterly said. He pointed to a 2017 West Virginia defamation case brought by mining executive Robert Murray against talk show host John Oliver over his coverage of Murray’s companies as one prominent example of a SLAPP. A judge dismissed the suit in 2018.
Klemin said the North Dakota Uniform Law Commission will sponsor the act during the 2027 legislative session. He said while he hasn’t yet heard feedback about the proposal from other North Dakota lawmakers, he doesn’t expect it to be controversial.
“It seems like an idea that protects your constitutional rights,” he said.
FOLLOW US FOR INSTANT UPDATES!
