NOTE: On May 24, 2024, Minnesota significantly improved its anti-SLAPP statute. Read more about the changes here.
| Subgrades | |
| Covered Speech: | F |
| Anti-SLAPP Procedures: | F |
| Subscores | |
| Covered Speech: | 0 out of 100 points |
| Anti-SLAPP Procedures: | 0 out of 100 points |
| Detailed Scoring on Anti-SLAPP Procedures | |
| Suspension of Court Proceedings Upon an Anti-SLAPP Motion: | 0 of 20 points |
| Burden of Proof on Plaintiff to Defeat an Anti-SLAPP Motion: | 0 of 12 points |
| Right to an Immediate Appeal: | 0 of 25 points |
| Award of Costs and Attorney Fees: | 0 of 40 points |
| Expansive Statutory Interpretation Instruction to Courts: | 0 of 3 points |
State Anti-SLAPP Statute
Minnesota’s anti-SLAPP statute was found unconstitutional; the Supreme Court of Minnesota found that the statute deprived litigants of their right to a jury trial.[1]
How to Improve Minnesota’s Score
Policymakers who seek to enact an anti-SLAPP statute are well-advised to consider the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA) as proposed by the Uniform Law Commission.
In 2020, the Uniform Law Commission (ULC), a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization of state commissioners on uniform laws that recommends and drafts model state legislation, adopted UPEPA as a model anti-SLAPP statute.
More information about UPEPA is available here.
[1] Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota, 895 N.W.2d 623, 635-37 (Minn. 2017).
