Stop Legal Harassment

Court access · Free expression · Accountability

Home

About

Editorial Policy

Tag: anti-slapp

  • Anti-SLAPP Basics: What the Tennessee Public Participation Act Covers

    Anti-SLAPP Basics: What the Tennessee Public Participation Act Covers

    Anti-SLAPP Basics: What the Tennessee Public Participation Act Covers

    Introduction

    Public disagreement can sometimes lead to litigation. Anti-SLAPP laws are designed to provide a process for courts to evaluate certain claims that arise from speech, petitioning, or association. Tennessee’s law is the Tennessee Public Participation Act, often called the TPPA. This general-information guide explains the statute’s purpose and structure without advising anyone about a particular dispute.

    What “Anti-SLAPP” Means

    SLAPP is shorthand for a “strategic lawsuit against public participation.” The label is commonly used to describe legal claims that may impose expense or pressure on people who speak, organize, or petition government about matters of public concern. Whether a particular lawsuit qualifies for relief under Tennessee law depends on its facts, claims, and procedural posture; it is not determined simply by the label used by either side.

    Man stands at a wooden podium speaking into a microphone to seated audience members who face a raised dais with five people behind a long table
    A speaker addresses a panel during a public meeting, a context often discussed when explaining anti‑SLAPP and public participation protections.

    The Tennessee Public Participation Act

    The TPPA protects certain exercises of the rights of free speech, petition, and association. It applies to a legal action that is based on, relates to, or is in response to a party’s exercise of those rights. The statute defines “exercise of the right of free speech” as a communication made in connection with a matter of public concern or religious expression. It separately defines petition activity and association.

    Matters of public concern

    The statutory definition includes issues concerning health or safety, environmental, economic, or community well-being, government, public officials, public figures, and goods or services in the marketplace. Courts apply the statutory text to the record before them. A connection to public concern is important for the free-speech branch of the Act, but it does not turn every dispute involving a public issue into a winning TPPA motion.

    Person from behind writing in an open notebook on a wooden counter, with folders, a magnifying glass and a blurred columned hallway beyond.
    Notes, folders and a magnifying glass on a wooden counter accompany someone writing, illustrating reviewing documents and preparing written remarks.

    The motion process

    A party seeking TPPA relief may file a motion to dismiss. The Act establishes a burden-shifting process. First, the movant must make a prima facie showing that the action is based on, relates to, or is in response to protected activity. The responding party may then avoid dismissal by establishing a prima facie case for each essential element of the claim. Even then, a motion may succeed if the movant establishes a valid defense as a matter of law.

    The TPPA also addresses timing, discovery, fees, sanctions, and appellate review. Discovery is generally stayed while a motion is pending, subject to the statute’s rules. Courts must apply the current statute and relevant precedent rather than rely on a generalized description of anti-SLAPP law.

    Hands of a person in a dark blazer turning a blank page and holding a pen over an open notebook, with a notebook and folder on a desk.
    Person turning pages and preparing to take notes, a neutral visual for the section on reviewing motions under Tennessee’s public participation law.

    What the TPPA Does Not Do

    The Act is not a blanket immunity from all accountability for speech or conduct. Defamation claims, contractual disputes, and other civil actions can involve complex questions about elements, privileges, evidence, and defenses. It is also not a substitute for careful reporting. Journalists and members of the public should verify documents, attribute allegations, seek comment when appropriate, and distinguish claims from proven facts.

    Why the Distinction Matters

    For public-interest reporting, the TPPA is significant because it recognizes the value of speech and petitioning while preserving procedures for courts to assess legally sufficient claims. A responsible account should state what the statute says, identify any judicial decision being discussed, and avoid implying that a party has engaged in “legal harassment” merely because a lawsuit exists.

    Disclaimer

    This article provides general information about the Tennessee Public Participation Act and is not legal advice. For advice on a specific matter, consult a qualified attorney.

    Open double doors reveal a formal hearing room with semicircular wooden benches and empty chairs; foreground desk holds an open notebook, pen, and stacked manila folders.
    A stack of manila folders and an open notebook rest at the entrance to a formal hearing room, illustrating documentary and procedural aspects discussed nearby.

    Sources

    Related reading: TPPA abuse-of-process and SLAPP defense.

  • Documents & Decisions: Tennessee Supreme Court Clarifies TPPA and Voluntary Dismissal

    Documents & Decisions: Tennessee Supreme Court Clarifies TPPA and Voluntary Dismissal

    The Tennessee Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a pending TPPA petition does not prevent a plaintiff from taking a voluntary nonsuit, though the defendant cannot recover TPPA fees if the dismissal occurs before the petition is adjudicated.

    On October 9, 2024, the Tennessee Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Robert E. Lee Flade v. City of Shelbyville, Tennessee, et al. The decision addresses the interaction between a plaintiff’s right to take a voluntary nonsuit under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.01 and a defendant’s petition to dismiss under the Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA).

    A photograph of bound legal briefs and a gavel on a polished desk, representing a court ruling.
    The Tennessee Supreme Court recently clarified the interaction between the TPPA and voluntary dismissals.

    The question before the court

    The case began after Robert E. Lee Flade sued several defendants over statements made on social media. In response, two defendants filed motions to dismiss and TPPA petitions that sought dismissal with prejudice, attorney’s fees and costs, and sanctions. Before the trial court heard those requests, Flade voluntarily nonsuited the complaint. The trial court entered an order dismissing the case without prejudice, and it declined to adjudicate the pending TPPA petitions. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

    The Supreme Court accepted the appeal to decide whether filing a TPPA petition creates an exception to a plaintiff’s right of voluntary dismissal under Rule 41.01.

    What Rule 41.01 generally allows

    Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.01 generally gives a plaintiff the right to take a voluntary nonsuit without prejudice before trial, subject to the rule’s terms and specified exceptions. A nonsuit ends that action without a decision on the merits, although the rule and other law may affect whether and how a claim can later be refiled. The rule is procedural and should be read closely in the context of a specific case.

    A photograph of a person holding a pen over a legal document, illustrating procedural review.
    Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.01 governs voluntary nonsuits before trial.

    The court’s holding

    The Supreme Court held that the filing of a TPPA petition is not an exception to Rule 41.01’s voluntary-nonsuit right. In the court’s analysis, the TPPA did not displace the long-established rule permitting a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action in these circumstances. Because the plaintiff dismissed the action before the trial court adjudicated the TPPA petitions, the trial court correctly declined to rule on them.

    The practical consequence identified by the court was significant: where a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the lawsuit before the TPPA petition is adjudicated, the defendant cannot obtain TPPA attorney’s fees in that proceeding. That conclusion follows from the procedural posture of the case; it does not resolve the merits of every dispute that may involve a TPPA petition.

    A photograph of an empty courtroom bench, representing a judicial holding.
    The court held that a pending TPPA petition does not prevent a plaintiff from taking a voluntary nonsuit.

    Why the decision matters

    The TPPA was enacted to provide a mechanism for early dismissal of certain legal actions that implicate free speech, petition, or association rights. The statute also includes provisions concerning discovery, fees, and sanctions. Flade clarifies a limit on that mechanism: a pending TPPA petition alone does not prevent a plaintiff from taking a timely voluntary nonsuit under Rule 41.01.

    For reporters and readers, the opinion is also a reminder that the timing of a filing can be outcome-determinative. A public docket might show a TPPA petition, a nonsuit, and a dismissal order. Those entries do not necessarily tell a full story unless the underlying pleadings and opinion are reviewed.

    A photograph of hands typing on a laptop, illustrating the review of public court records.
    Reviewing the underlying pleadings and opinion is essential to understanding a case’s procedural posture.

    How to read this ruling responsibly

    The decision does not announce that every claim implicating speech is meritless, nor does it answer whether a particular lawsuit is retaliatory. It addresses a particular procedural question arising from the relationship between a voluntary dismissal and a statutory dismissal petition. When discussing the case, it is important to distinguish the court’s legal holding from allegations made in the underlying pleadings.

    Primary sources

    1. Tennessee Supreme Court opinion, Flade v. City of Shelbyville.
    2. Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts press release.
    3. Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.01.

    Editorial note: This article provides general information based on public court materials. It is not legal advice and does not assess the truth of unproven allegations in the underlying dispute.

    Related reading: TPPA abuse-of-process protections.