Salaam v. Trump

For years First Amendment advocates have pushed for Pennsylvania to pass an anti-SLAPP law. A SLAPP is a “Strategic lawsuit against public participation,” and it’s exactly what it sounds like: Instances where individuals or organizations use the legal system to silence speech they don’t like. In other words, it’s censorship by lawsuit.

In 2024, Pennsylvania finally passed a broad anti-SLAPP provision, the Pennsylvania Uniform Public Expression Protection Act. The act creates, in part, immunity for “protected public expression” and a mandatory award of attorneys’ fees and costs for a party forced to defend against a claim from which it is immune.

The new Act is already being tested. In a defamation case brought against Donald Trump in federal court, Trump has argued the lawsuit against him is a SLAPP suit and should be dismissed under Pennsylvania’s Act. The Plaintiffs, meanwhile, have argued that the Act shouldn’t apply in federal court.

The law, however, is clear: Claims brought under Pennsylvania defamation law are still subject to Pennsylvania’s anti-SLAPP law. That’s true even when those claims are brought in federal court–federal courts must apply state substantive law to state-law claims. And because Pennsylvania’s anti-SLAPP law provides an immunity against SLAPPs and allows for awards of attorneys fees and costs, those substantive protections should apply in federal courts.

That’s what FIRE has argued in a recent friend-of-the court filing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, joined by eight other organizations who advocate for greater protections for speech. As the amicus brief makes clear, the federal court is bound to apply Pennsylvania’s anti-SLAPP law, regardless of the merits of Plaintiffs’ lawsuit. The court system shouldn’t be used to silence speech, and there shouldn’t be a loophole for SLAPPs that bring state-law claims in federal court.

FIRE thanks Michael Berry, Kaitlin Gurney, and Anna Kaul from Ballard Spahr for authoring the amicus brief.