Applying Illinois's Anti-SLAPP Statute Following The Illinois Supreme Court's Decision In Sandholm V. Kuecker

Originally published on January 31, 2012.

Keywords: Illinois, anti-SLAPP statute, legislation

A recent Illinois Supreme Court decision, Sandholm v. Kuecker,1 creates additional complexity when seeking dismissal based on Illinois's anti-SLAPP ("Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation") statute.2

In 2007, Illinois joined more than 20 other states in enacting anti-SLAPP legislation, which is intended to avert lawsuits that are aimed at preventing citizens from participating in government. Illinois's statute immunizes acts undertaken in furtherance of a person's right to participate in government "regardless of intent or purpose, except when [those acts are] not genuinely aimed at procuring favorable" government action.3 The statute applies to any dispositive motion challenging a claim that is "based on, relates to, or is in response to" acts of the moving party in furtherance of his or her right to participate in government4 and requires a court to dismiss claims to which the statute applies unless the plaintiff produces "clear and convincing evidence" that the acts at issue were not genuinely aimed at procuring favorable government action.5

The plaintiff in Sandholm, a high school athletic director and head basketball coach, alleged various defamation, false light, invasion of privacy and tortious interference claims against multiple defendants who were supposedly part of a campaign before the school board and throughout the community to have the plaintiff removed from his positions. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint, finding that the anti-SLAPP statute immunized the claims.6 The appellate court agreed.

In reaching its decision, the appellate court concluded that the anti-SLAPP statute provides a "qualified privilege for any defamatory statements communicated in furtherance of one's right to ... participate in government," which "may be exceeded if the statements are not made with the genuine aim at procuring a favorable government action."7 So, based on the appellate court's interpretation of the statute, even tortious acts occurring in the furtherance of a person's participation in government would be immune from liability so long as those acts were intended to procure favorable government action.

The Illinois Supreme Court disagreed. The court said that legislative history supports a conclusion that the anti-SLAPP statute is not "intended to abolish an individual's right to seek redress for defamation or other...