House debates anti‑SLAPP bill and rejects multiple amendments; ordered to third reading

House Bill 223, titled “preventing strategic lawsuits against public participation,” dominated a lengthy floor debate on Feb. 11 as members considered how to balance protections for petition and speech with plaintiffs’ access to redress for reputational harms. After several proposed changes failed, the House ordered the bill to be read a third time.

Representative Chesty moved amendments on multiple points, arguing the bill as drafted was “overbroad and over aggressive” and that certain provisions would improperly reach beyond Wyoming or undermine local government authority. “This bill, as I said yesterday during debate, I think is a problematic bill. It has a good intent. And there's parts of it I do like. But I think it's overbroad and over aggressive in a lot of ways,” Representative Chesty told colleagues.

Major areas of floor debate

- Extraterritorial application: Representative Chesty sought to remove sections that would allow Wyoming law to be used to relitigate suits filed and decided elsewhere. Chesty said the language risked applying Wyoming law to claims and litigants that lacked sufficient contacts with the state. The House rejected that amendment.

- Local government/time-place-manner protections: One amendment aimed to preserve municipalities’ ability to impose content-neutral time, place and manner rules for public demonstrations without creating new liability. Floor debate highlighted that municipalities currently enjoy certain immunities under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act for discretionary acts; some members warned the bill could undercut those protections. The proposed narrowing was not adopted.

- Discovery limits and defamation suits: Members repeatedly discussed the bill’s limit on discovery in SLAPP-style motions. Representative Lawley warned that retroactive application or overly strict discovery limits could create ex post facto issues and materially restrict plaintiffs seeking redress for defamation. Lawley offered language to set a clear effective date and to exclude defamation suits from the bill’s definition of strategic lawsuits; that amendment also failed in floor votes. Lawley argued, “If we take defamation out of there, then it's clear that we're not trying to limit defamation suits by individuals.”

- Effective date and pending lawsuits: Lawmakers debated whether the bill should apply to pending suits. Representative Lawley described ex post facto concerns and tried to limit the law’s reach to cases filed on or after a clear effective date; the amendment to fix effective-date language did not carry.

Supporters and opponents

Proponents said the bill defends First Amendment rights and protects citizens from “lawfare” — litigation intended to chill public participation. Representative Oppman said removing territorial language would “do exactly what we're trying to prevent” and urged colleagues to preserve broader protections for petitioner speech.

Opponents and amendment sponsors said the bill’s procedural protections — limited discovery, expedited dismissal motions, and fee-shifting provisions — could curtail legitimate defamation and other civil claims and would alter Wyoming’s civil procedure and constitutional access to courts. Representative Lawley warned that the bill, as drafted, “completely sets a whole new set of civil procedure procedures for these lawsuits that are limiting greatly the rights of plaintiffs.”

Floor outcomes and next steps

- Several floor amendments (including attempts to remove extraterritorial application, to preserve local time/place/manner authority, to exclude defamation from the bill’s scope, and to set a specific effective date excluding pending suits) were put to the House and failed to be adopted.

- After the debate and votes on multiple amendments, House Bill 223 was ordered to third reading for final consideration. The sequence of rejected amendments and floor debate will be part of the legislative record as members prepare for third reading and possible additional amendment on the floor.

Quotes

“This bill, as I said yesterday during debate, I think is a problematic bill. It has a good intent. And there's parts of it I do like. But I think it's overbroad and over aggressive in a lot of ways,” Representative Chesty said while offering amendments to narrow scope and remove extraterritorial provisions.

“Ex post facto was a really important part of the formation of our country,” Representative Lawley said urging careful effective-date language and caution about applying the bill to pending suits.

“This is to protect people that are being shut down and shut up against their first amendment rights. This doesn't favor one over another. It just says that you have the right to say or to petition wherever those First Amendment rights apply,” Representative Hoffman said in defense of the bill’s intent.

Ending

House Bill 223 remains under active consideration; it was ordered to third reading after extended floor debate and votes on competing amendments. The bill’s procedural provisions for discovery, the scope of protected petitioning activity, and the handling of defamation claims are likely to remain focal points as the Legislature moves to final passage and enrollment.