Civil Actions - Maryland Uniform Public Expression Protection Act
HB0650 repeals Maryland’s existing anti-SLAPP provision and replaces it with the Maryland Uniform Public Expression Protection Act. The bill creates a new subtitle in the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article that gives a person sued in civil court a special motion for expedited relief when the claim is based on that person’s communication in a legislative, executive, judicial, administrative, or other governmental proceeding, or on the person’s exercise of free speech, press, assembly, petition, or association rights on a matter of public concern. It is designed to protect speech connected to government proceedings and public issues from lawsuits that may be intended to chill participation.
The bill sets out a detailed procedure for dismissal: the motion must generally be filed within 60 days of service, proceedings are stayed while the motion is pending, limited discovery is allowed only in narrow circumstances, hearings and rulings are time-limited, and an immediate appeal is available if the motion is denied in whole or in part. If the moving party prevails, the court must award costs, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses; if the responding party prevails and the motion was frivolous or filed only to delay, fees and costs may be awarded to the responding party. The bill also excludes certain claims, including actions against governmental units or officials acting in an official capacity, enforcement actions addressing imminent threats to public health or safety, and claims arising from communications related to the sale or lease of goods or services.
In terms of state law, HB0650 would repeal current Section 5-807 and add new Sections 5-1301 through 5-1313, while renumbering the existing Section 5-808 to 5-807. It would broaden and modernize Maryland’s anti-SLAPP framework by adopting a uniform act, expressly directing courts to construe it broadly to protect constitutional speech and petition rights and to promote uniformity with other states that enact similar laws. The bill applies prospectively only and would take effect October 1, 2026.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly protective of public expression and participation in government processes. The sponsors and structure of the bill indicate support for stronger procedural safeguards against lawsuits that could deter speech on public matters. No committee testimony or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented opposition or support beyond the bill’s pro-speech design and its introduction in the Judiciary Committee.
Potential points of contention are likely to center on the breadth of the new protections, the automatic stay of litigation, the expedited dismissal process, and the fee-shifting provisions. Supporters would likely view these features as necessary to deter meritless retaliatory suits, while critics may argue that the bill could make it harder for plaintiffs with legitimate claims to proceed, especially where speech-related conduct overlaps with business disputes or other civil claims. The exclusions for governmental enforcement actions, public health and safety emergencies, and commercial sales communications appear intended to narrow those concerns.
HB0650 would substantially revise Maryland civil procedure by replacing the existing anti-SLAPP statute with a new, more detailed anti-retaliatory speech framework. It would amend the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, repeal current Section 5-807, add a new Subtitle 13 with Sections 5-1301 through 5-1313, and renumber the current Section 5-808 to 5-807. The bill would affect litigants in civil actions involving speech, petitioning, association, and communications in government proceedings, while carving out claims against governmental actors, emergency public-health/safety enforcement, and certain commercial communications. It would also impose new expedited motion, stay, appeal, and attorney-fee procedures for covered cases, and would apply only to causes of action arising on or after the effective date.
The bill’s tone and structure are strongly supportive of free expression, public participation, and protection from lawsuits that may chill speech. Because no hearing transcript or vote record is provided, there is no direct evidence of committee debate or bipartisan support/opposition in the materials. Based on the text alone, the measure appears to be framed as a reform to strengthen Maryland’s protections for speakers, petitioners, and participants in public affairs.
Likely areas of contention include whether the bill’s protections are too broad, whether the automatic stay and expedited dismissal process could delay legitimate claims, and whether the fee-shifting rules might discourage plaintiffs from bringing close cases. Another possible point of debate is the scope of the exclusions, especially the carve-out for claims involving the sale or lease of goods or services and the exception for imminent public health or safety threats. Supporters would likely emphasize deterrence of strategic lawsuits against public participation, while critics may focus on access to courts and the risk of dismissing meritorious claims too early.