Senate Bill 57 would enact Michigan’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, a state anti-SLAPP law designed to protect people from lawsuits that are filed because they spoke, petitioned, assembled, or otherwise participated in public affairs on matters of public concern. The bill states that its purpose is to encourage vigorous participation in government and to reduce the chilling effect of retaliatory litigation by creating a faster procedure for courts to screen and dismiss covered claims.
Under the bill, a defendant sued for an “eligible cause of action” could file a special motion for expedited relief within 60 days of service. Once that motion is filed, most proceedings, including discovery, would be stayed while the court quickly decides whether the case should be dismissed. The court would have to rule based on the pleadings and limited evidence, and if the plaintiff cannot show the claim falls outside the act or cannot establish a prima facie case, the court must dismiss the action with prejudice. The bill also allows an immediate appeal from a denial and requires fee-shifting: the prevailing moving party generally recovers court costs, attorney fees, and litigation expenses, while a responding party can recover if the motion was frivolous or filed only to delay.
The bill would affect Michigan civil procedure by adding a new statutory framework that changes how certain lawsuits are litigated at the outset. It would apply to claims based on communications in legislative, executive, judicial, administrative, or other governmental proceedings, or on speech, press, assembly, petition, or association rights on matters of public concern. It also carves out several categories from coverage, including actions involving governmental enforcement, certain commercial communications, and claims under major civil rights, whistleblower, labor, disability, education, and information-access laws such as Elliott-Larsen, the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act, FOIA, Title VII, Title IX, the ADA, FMLA, and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of free expression and public participation, with the legislation framed as a protection against abusive litigation rather than a restriction on legitimate claims. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence here of legislative debate or partisan division. The structure of the bill suggests an intent to provide robust procedural protections for speech-related defendants while preserving access to the courts for specified employment, civil rights, and public-safety matters.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the breadth of the anti-SLAPP protections, the automatic stay of discovery and other proceedings, and the burden placed on plaintiffs to overcome the expedited motion. Critics could argue that the bill may make it harder for some injured parties to pursue valid claims, while supporters would emphasize that the exemptions for civil rights, whistleblower, and labor claims help prevent misuse against ordinary statutory protections. The bill also gives courts discretion to allow limited discovery and to hear injunction requests for imminent public-health or safety threats, which appears designed to balance speech protections with other urgent interests.
The bill would create a new Michigan act governing special motions to dismiss in lawsuits arising from protected speech and petitioning activity, effectively adding anti-SLAPP procedures to state civil practice. It would impose expedited timelines, stay most discovery and related proceedings, authorize immediate appeals, and require fee-shifting for prevailing parties, while also defining broad exemptions for governmental enforcement, certain commercial disputes, and a list of civil rights, whistleblower, disability, education, labor, and information-access claims.
The bill’s overall tone is strongly pro-free-speech and pro-citizen participation, with the text explicitly describing strategic lawsuits against public participation as abusive and chilling. No committee testimony or votes are provided, so there is no recorded legislative opposition or support to summarize beyond the bill’s own framing. Based on the language alone, the measure appears intended to be protective and remedial rather than controversial in purpose, though its procedural effects could draw debate.
The likely areas of contention are whether the bill gives too much protection to defendants in speech-related cases, whether the stay of discovery and expedited dismissal process could disadvantage plaintiffs with legitimate claims, and how broadly courts should interpret what counts as protected public expression. Supporters would point to the anti-SLAPP purpose, fee-shifting, and quick dismissal mechanism as necessary safeguards against retaliatory litigation. Opponents, if any, would likely focus on access-to-justice concerns and the risk that meritorious claims could be delayed or dismissed early, though the bill’s exemptions for civil rights and similar claims are meant to address some of those concerns.