“Legal harassment” is a useful description of a concern, not a legal conclusion. A lawsuit can be expensive, disruptive, and emotionally difficult without being unlawful. At the same time, Tennessee law contains procedural and common-law concepts that address certain improper uses of litigation. Two are especially important to understand: the Tennessee Public Participation Act and the tort of abuse of process.
The Tennessee Public Participation Act
The Tennessee Public Participation Act, often called the TPPA, is Tennessee’s anti-SLAPP statute. It provides a procedure for seeking dismissal of a legal action that is based on, relates to, or is in response to a person’s exercise of the right of free speech, the right to petition, or the right of association. The legislature enacted the statute through 2019 legislation to protect constitutional activity on matters of public concern while preserving claims that meet the governing legal standard.
The statute is procedural. A party who believes an action implicates the TPPA may file a petition to dismiss. The court then applies the statute’s burdens and deadlines. In general terms, the petitioning party must first make a prima facie showing that the challenged action is based on, relates to, or is in response to protected activity. If that showing is made, the responding party must establish a prima facie case for each essential element of its claim. The statute also provides rules concerning discovery, fees, sanctions, and appeal.
That does not mean the TPPA decides whether speech was wise, accurate, or harmless. It also does not make every dispute involving criticism, social media, advocacy, or government participation an anti-SLAPP case. Courts apply the statute to the claims and record before them. Its availability and effect are fact-specific, and parties should not rely on a general description in place of qualified legal advice.
Why “SLAPP” is a description, not a finding
SLAPP is shorthand for “strategic lawsuit against public participation.” The term is often used to describe litigation perceived as intended to chill speaking, petitioning, reporting, or organizing. But whether a particular case qualifies for TPPA relief depends on the statute and the court’s application of it—not simply on the label used by a litigant, advocate, or observer.
Careful reporting should therefore identify what is documented: the claim asserted, the activity alleged to be protected, the motion or petition filed, the court’s ruling, and any appeal. It should avoid saying that a lawsuit was “harassment” or “retaliation” as a fact unless a court finding or other reliable evidence supports that characterization.
Abuse of process under Tennessee common law
The separate tort of abuse of process concerns an improper use of legal process after it has been issued. It is not the same as a claim that a lawsuit never should have been filed. In the Tennessee Supreme Court’s 1999 decision in Bell v. Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, P.A., the court addressed an abuse-of-process allegation and affirmed dismissal because a required element—an improper act in the use of process—was not sufficiently alleged.
The distinction matters. A claimed ulterior motive alone is not enough. The focus is on whether process was used for a purpose for which it was not designed, coupled with an improper act in that use. This is why public discussion should be disciplined: litigation can be contentious or deeply harmful without satisfying the elements of a specific tort.
What readers can verify
Readers evaluating a public dispute can start with primary documents. Look for the complaint, answer, motions, orders, and appellate opinions. Identify the court, case number, filing date, and current procedural posture. Separate allegations from findings. A complaint tells readers what a party alleges; it does not prove the allegation. A court order may explain what the court decided, but its scope should be read carefully.
This approach also helps protect public discussion. Exact attribution, links to official records, and clear language about uncertainty are core practices for reporting on legal conflicts.
Conclusion
Tennessee’s TPPA and its common-law abuse-of-process doctrine address different problems and operate under different standards. Together, they illustrate an important principle: public participation and the right to seek judicial relief both matter, and responsible analysis depends on the actual pleadings, evidence, and rulings in a case.
Editorial note
This article provides general information based on publicly available legal materials. It is not legal advice and does not evaluate any individual dispute.
Sources
- Tennessee General Assembly, SB1097.
- Tennessee Supreme Court, Bell opinion.
- Tennessee Public Participation Act, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 20-17-101–20-17-110.
Related reading: Tennessee Public Participation Act anti-SLAPP basics.
Leave a Reply