The Utilisation of SLAPP Lawsuits in US Politics

WITHIN politics, litigation has become an increasingly common tool: not just for resolving genuine legal disputes, but as a strategic weapon to silence individuals with opposing views and suppress potential critics.

One of the most notable examples is the use of SLAPP lawsuits, or Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. A SLAPP is a lawsuit, or the threat of one, designed not primarily to seek justice but to intimidate, censor or punish those engaging in public discourse, especially critical reporting on matters of public interest. Such suits are typically framed as ordinary civil claims, such as defamation or breach of contract.

Case Study: X Corp v. Center for Countering Digital Hate

In 2023, Elon Musk’s X Corp sued the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a non-profit research group, alleging that CCDH had violated the platform’s terms of service through the data-scraping methods it used to research hate speech on the platform. X Corp claimed the research had cost it millions in lost advertising revenue, as several advertisers withdrew after CCDH published its findings.

Notably, X Corp did not sue for defamation, which would have required it to prove that CCDH’s research was false and published either knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth: a high bar it was unlikely to clear. Instead, it relied on a breach-of-contract claim over data scraping, while demanding “at least tens of millions of dollars” in damages, enough to dismantle the operations of a small non-profit.

In March 2024, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer dismissed the case, writing that it was “impossible to read the complaint and not conclude that X Corp is far more concerned about CCDH’s speech than it is its data collection methods”. The ruling made explicit what the lawsuit’s structure already suggested: the aim was less to remedy a contractual breach than to penalise CCDH for publishing research critical of X Corp, and to dissuade other researchers and watchdogs from doing the same.

Litigation as a Weapon of Attrition

SLAPP lawsuits differ from regular lawsuits in that they actively benefit the powerful and wealthy, allowing them to bury everyday citizens, journalists and activists in costly, time-consuming legal proceedings. Where a regular lawsuit uses the court system to seek compensation or a remedy, a SLAPP uses litigation itself as a weapon of attrition. Such suits are used frequently by politicians, corporations and powerful individuals to stifle adverse publicity, even when the underlying criticism is credible and well founded.

In 2021, Cory Tomczyk, now a Wisconsin state senator, sued a small local news outlet, the non-profit Wausau Pilot & Review, for defamation, after it reported that he had been overheard using a homophobic slur at a Marathon County Board meeting.

The suit was eventually dismissed on summary judgment. The court found that, as a public figure, Tomczyk could not show that the journalists had acted with “actual malice”, meaning knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Even so, the case cost the tiny newsroom well over $150,000 in legal defence fees, pushing it towards financial collapse and forcing it to raise money through a public crowdfunding campaign to keep its doors open.

Tomczyk lost, including on a subsequent appeal, which a Wisconsin appeals court rejected in 2024. Yet he still succeeded in draining the local paper’s resources, showing how a SLAPP can weaponise the financial imbalance between the parties regardless of the eventual verdict.

Faced with costly litigation and time away from their careers, other defendants in similar cases have instead been pressured into settlements requiring retractions or apologies, silencing dissent before a case ever reaches a courtroom. Knowing a suit could destroy their finances, journalists and ordinary citizens often abandon investigations or avoid controversial topics altogether.

Controlling the News Cycle

SLAPP lawsuits also serve to protect the images of public figures. Initiating a lawsuit, rather than openly confronting critics or addressing the substance of an allegation, lets a public figure avoid appearing defensive or untruthful in the face of negative publicity, and keep the support of those who might otherwise be swayed by the allegations.

A case in point is President Donald Trump, who has filed numerous lawsuits against the press, including a $10 billion claim against the BBC, still before the courts as this issue goes to print, alongside major legal actions against The New York Times, CBS, ABC and CNN.

Media scholars view the scale of the damages sought not as a realistic expectation of legal victory, but as a strategic weapon to muzzle the press. Forcing news organisations to defend multi-billion-dollar cases diverts their resources into legal bills and discourages deeper investigative journalism into a plaintiff’s finances and conduct.

The outcomes of Trump’s press lawsuits have in fact varied considerably. His suit against CNN over its use of the phrase “the Big Lie” was dismissed in 2023 as protected opinion. His first suit against The New York Times was dismissed on procedural grounds in September 2025 before being refiled for $15 billion. ABC and CBS chose to settle, for $15 million and a reported $16 million respectively, rather than litigate to judgment, and the BBC case remains active.

This mixture of dismissals, settlements and ongoing litigation still lets a politician tell their base that the media is “lying” and being sued, shifting focus from the underlying story; Trump has reinforced the message by routinely labelling unfavourable coverage “fake news”.

By rerouting controversy from headlines to courtrooms, these suits absorb public attention, and by the time a case is resolved, discourse has often moved on, leaving a public figure’s reputation largely intact among supporters.

When Trump Media & Technology Group filed a $3.8 billion defamation lawsuit against The Washington Post in 2023, over the paper’s reporting on the company’s finances, it drew intense media coverage. When a federal judge dismissed the case in July 2026, ruling that the company had failed to demonstrate “actual malice”, the decision received only a fraction of the attention the original filing had generated three years earlier.

The Line Between a SLAPP and a Legitimate Lawsuit

However exploitative SLAPP lawsuits may seem, anyone, regardless of wealth or status, has the legal right to seek redress in the courts if they believe defamatory or unlawful statements have been made about them. Litigation, after all, is an established mechanism for resolving disputes. What matters is being able to recognise when litigation is being weaponised to intimidate and silence criticism, rather than to vindicate a legitimate legal claim.

In 2017, the coal executive Robert Murray and his company, Murray Energy, sued the television host John Oliver and HBO. Oliver had aired a segment on Last Week Tonight mocking Murray’s appearance, comparing him to a “geriatric Dr. Evil”, and questioning his company’s record on mine safety.

Murray alleged defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and false-light invasion of privacy, sought financial damages, and demanded a gag order to stop the episode being rebroadcast. A West Virginia trial court dismissed the case in February 2018, finding no valid legal claim.

Murray appealed to the state Supreme Court, but abandoned the appeal in November 2019, shortly after Murray Energy filed for bankruptcy. By the time the case was over, HBO had spent more than $200,000 defending it, and its libel insurance premiums had tripled, despite prevailing in court throughout.

By contrast, a legitimate defamation lawsuit aims to repair actual, quantifiable harm caused by provably false statements. If, for example, a mining company were falsely accused by a business rival of violating safety regulations, and those false claims directly cost it supply contracts worth millions, the company could file an ordinary lawsuit to recover those specific, provable losses.

Here, the parties are engaged in a genuine dispute, and the plaintiff has no interest in prolonging the conflict, only in restoring the reputation and finances the false claims damaged.

Who Files SLAPPs?

SLAPPs tend to be filed by those with the most power to litigate. Data from Europe points the same way: of the SLAPP cases recorded across the continent in 2023 by the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE), businesses filed 45.2 per cent and politicians a further 35.5 per cent, meaning these two groups together accounted for over 80 per cent of all recorded cases.

By definition, a SLAPP relies on a large disparity in resources: wealthy individuals and corporations have well-resourced legal teams, donor networks or state-backed resources that let them easily outspend independent journalists, activists or ordinary citizens. A politician’s career, moreover, rests almost entirely on public perception, creating a powerful incentive to use defamation or privacy law to bury damaging reporting.

It is crucial to recognise, however, that not every lawsuit brought by a large corporation or a politician is a SLAPP. While such plaintiffs stand to gain a great deal from litigation, their position does not mean they forfeit the right to protect themselves from actual defamation.

Public figures and businesses retain a legitimate right to defend their reputations in court when malicious falsehoods cause verifiable harm. The critical distinction lies in intent: a legitimate lawsuit seeks a fair legal remedy for a specific wrong, whereas a SLAPP uses the gruelling legal process itself as a weapon to suppress honest public debate.

The Patchwork of Anti-SLAPP Protection

Current legal protection against SLAPP lawsuits in the US consists of state anti-SLAPP statutes, which enable early dismissal of meritless suits intended to suppress free speech. Most work in two steps: the defendant first shows that the lawsuit targets protected speech, and the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to justify the claim.

How heavy that second burden is varies from state to state. In states such as California or Georgia, the plaintiff must show a “probability” of winning at trial; elsewhere, the test is weaker. Some states with robust anti-SLAPP laws let a defendant appeal immediately if a judge denies their motion to dismiss; others force defendants to wait until the entire trial concludes before they can appeal at all.

This inconsistency lets those filing SLAPP lawsuits engage in “forum shopping”: seeking out federal courts or states with weaker or non-existent anti-SLAPP protections, so that a weak claim is more likely to survive an early dismissal.

Why Federal Reform Has Failed

Attempts to enact a federal anti-SLAPP law have repeatedly failed, and federal courts have struggled to apply the state laws, largely because federal courts operate under uniform procedural rules.

Many judges view state anti-SLAPP mechanisms as conflicting with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Rule 8 requires only a “short and plain statement” of a claim, whereas anti-SLAPP laws often require a plaintiff to show a “probability of success”, effectively demanding a mini-trial at the pleading stage.

Under the Erie doctrine, federal courts hearing cases between parties from different states must apply the relevant state’s substantive law while following federal procedural rules. Courts disagree over whether anti-SLAPP laws count as substantive, because they protect First Amendment rights, or merely procedural, since they dictate how a lawsuit is managed.

Conclusion: Towards a Federal Standard

The use of SLAPP lawsuits in US politics represents a serious threat to free speech, letting powerful individuals silence critics through costly litigation. Meaningful reform therefore requires standardisation.

A comprehensive federal anti-SLAPP law should explicitly define such protections as either substantive or procedural, and tighten restrictions on abusive lawsuits by mandating an immediate freeze on discovery once an anti-SLAPP motion is filed. It should include a mandatory fee-shifting provision forcing unsuccessful plaintiffs to cover the defendant’s legal costs, preventing plaintiffs from inflicting financial ruin through prolonged litigation.

To protect defendants from prolonged reputational harm, it should also require courts to hold a hearing on an anti-SLAPP motion within 30 days of its filing, and to issue a final ruling within a further 30 days, so that cases cannot linger indefinitely on the docket. Finally, it should grant defendants an automatic right of appeal if a district court denies their anti-SLAPP motion.

Strengthening anti-SLAPP protection in this way is essential to upholding the legal principles, and the fundamental freedoms, at the heart of American democracy.