Utah Supreme Court weighs whether anti‑SLAPP law shields parent who complained about teacher

The Utah Supreme Court heard oral argument in Mackie v. Krauss over whether Utah’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, known as UPIPA, protects a parent who complained about a teacher at a school board meeting and in follow‑up communications from a subsequent defamation lawsuit.

At issue is whether the parent’s statements were “on a matter of public concern” under UPIPA and therefore subject to the statute’s expedited procedure for dismissing suits the law aims to deter as meritless or chilling to public speech.

Why it matters: UPIPA (the state’s anti‑SLAPP framework) creates a faster path to dismiss claims that arise from protected petitioning, press, speech, assembly or association on matters of public concern. The court’s construction of “matter of public concern,” how the three UPIPA procedural phases interact, and what evidence a responding party may rely on at each phase could affect defamation litigation arising from school complaints statewide.

During argument the court focused on three recurring questions: (1) what a workable definition of “matter of public concern” is under UPIPA; (2) whether the statements at the public school board meeting, a private follow‑up call with the superintendent, and a later email with attached notes are covered by the statute; and (3) how UPIPA’s phased burdens (the statute’s so‑called phase 1/2/3 structure) reconcile pleadings, summary evidence and defenses such as conditional or absolute privileges.

Counsel for the appellant argued the statute was meant to be broadly protective of petitioning and speech on public matters and that the parent’s communications fit one of UPIPA’s buckets…