In an important ruling safeguarding free speech rights, the Connecticut Supreme Court held this month that court decisions denying anti-SLAPP motions to dismiss may be immediately appealed rather than waiting for the conclusion of the case, potentially allowing those sued for exercising their First Amendment rights to avoid the burden of frivolous litigation.

Connecticut’s anti-SLAPP law under §52-196a, which stands for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, aims to protect those sued for exercising their First Amendment rights. Anti-SLAPP lawsuits most often involve an individual or publication sued for making written or spoken public statements. The law allows a defendant in such a case to potentially short-circuit the litigation process by filing an expedited motion to dismiss showing that the lawsuit does not have sufficient legal merit and relates to an issue of public concern. A successful motion can avoid protracted and costly litigation and recover legal fees incurred in filing the motion to dismiss.

In three companion cases decided earlier this month all dealing with the same issue, the state Supreme Court ruled that if a court denies an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss, allowing a case to proceed on the merits, the defendant may instantly appeal that decision to a higher court. Without an immediate appeal, a case may proceed through discovery and potentially trial, and can take several years, before the unsuccessful defendant can take an appeal.

In all three of these cases, Pryor v. Brignole, Smith v. Supple, and Robinson v. V.D., the Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts, which held that an appeal must be delayed. In reaching its decision, the Court acknowledged that the purpose of the anti-SLAPP statute, which is to avoid costly and burdensome litigation on the merits, would be lost if defendants were required to litigate these cases to their conclusion rather than immediately appeal.

Anti-SLAPP laws are significant in protecting against the risk that the threat of litigation may stifle speech protected by the First Amendment. When Connecticut passed its law, one of the main examples of its importance cited in the legislature was protecting private citizens against real estate developers who file defamation lawsuits to effectively bully them into not speaking out against development projects. The law is also commonly applied to protect newspaper reporting from lawsuits by individuals who are subjects of that reporting. Connecticut is one of 32 states with an anti-SLAPP law on the books, and is now joins 16 states that allow a right of immediate appeal of a decision under the anti-SLAPP law.