Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Free Speech Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears anti‑SLAPP bill backed by Uniform Law Commission and broad coalition
Summary
House Bill 4045 would let courts quickly dismiss strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs); sponsor Representative Hope and Caitlin Wolf of the Uniform Law Commission said the bill creates an early 'off‑ramp' and noted bipartisan and civil‑society support.
The House Judiciary Committee heard testimony on House Bill 4045, a measure authorizing an early dismissal process for strategic lawsuits against public participation (commonly called SLAPP suits).
Representative Hope, the bill sponsor, called HB 4045 "common sense legislation" that would allow courts to dismiss suits filed to intimidate or silence people who speak out on matters of public interest. She said the bill would permit a defendant to seek dismissal within 60 days of the filing when the plaintiff cannot show prima facie evidence to support the claim and that, in some cases, attorney fees could be awarded.
Caitlin Wolf, testifying on behalf of the Uniform Law Commission, described the bill as creating an expedited ‘‘off‑ramp’’ for lawsuits that lack merit. "This bill would, in essence, create an expedited process to deal with SLAPP lawsuits and hopefully to prevent them from happening in the first place in Michigan," Wolf said, noting that variants of the uniform act exist across many states.
Representative Hope and Wolf said safeguards exist, including the right to an immediate appeal, and both highlighted the bill’s bipartisan support and endorsements from diverse groups. The chair read organizational positions filed on the record listing supporters including the Motion Picture Association, Michigan Association of Justice, ACLU of Michigan, Michigan Coalition to End Domestic Violence, the State Bar of Michigan, and the Sierra Club; one group (Salt and Light Global) was listed as opposing the bill.
Peter Phillips, a public commenter, described prior difficulties obtaining committee time under a previous chair and framed his remarks in the context of the bill and free‑speech concerns.
Committee members asked for concrete examples and for clarification on whether the government is treated differently when it is a plaintiff or defendant. Witnesses said the bill allows early motions both where private actors and government actors are defendants, but some provisions reflect a higher standard when government is involved. Representative Hope said the bill previously passed the House 100‑8 last session but did not complete the session.
No committee vote on HB 4045 was recorded during the hearing.
