Supporters Tell Committee Uniform Anti‑SLAPP Law Will Protect Public Participation; Opposition Raises Free‑Speech Concerns

Senate Bill 251, the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, drew extensive pro and con testimony on Jan. 29 as the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee heard from legal experts, news organizations, advocates and a group opposing the bill.

Senator Sarah Love, the bill sponsor, described UPEPA as a three‑phase, burden‑shifting framework that allows courts to decide early whether a lawsuit targets protected speech and to dismiss meritless claims quickly while allowing meritorious cases to proceed. ‘‘The bill before you is a uniform act written and supported by the Uniform Law Commission,’’ Love said, framing the update as modernizing Maryland’s two‑decade‑old anti‑SLAPP statute.

Proponents included Max Mishkin, an attorney at Ballard Spahr, who said stronger anti‑SLAPP laws have ‘‘a proven track record’’ and that fee‑shifting provisions reduce the chilling effect of meritless suits. Representatives of broadcast media and press associations—Tim Nelson (broadcasters) and Rebecca Snyder (Maryland‑Delaware‑DC Press Association)—urged the committee to adopt the uniform act to protect journalists and small news organizations from prolonged litigation.

Community witnesses offered personal accounts. Stephanie Flash said a petition she helped circulate prompted swift litigation and left local organizers exposed to costly suits; she urged stronger protections to preserve public participation. Panel drafters and ULC representatives emphasized careful drafting to exclude governmental enforcement actions and to allow courts to rule where there is an ‘‘imminent threat to public health or safety.’’ Caitlin Wolf of the Uniform Law Commission described the act as a ‘‘gold standard’’ that draws on effective features from other states.

In opposition, Laura Bogley of Maryland Right to Life asked the committee to reject the bill, arguing it would ‘‘deprive defendants of this affirmative defense when the government itself is the plaintiff’’ and could curtail pro‑life speech. The opposition framed the issue as one of deference to courts to determine threats to public safety.

Committee members probed statutory language, particularly the exceptions for imminent threats and how the stay of proceedings would operate in practice. Witnesses said judges would evaluate imminent threats using established injunctive‑relief procedures and evidence, and that government criminal or enforcement actions are not covered by the act.

No formal vote was recorded at the end of the hearing; proponents urged a favorable report and opponents asked that the committee reject the measure.