Establishes the "Uniform Public Expression Protection Act"
HB1092 repeals Missouri’s existing section 537.528 and replaces it with a new section titled the "Uniform Public Expression Protection Act." The bill creates a special motion to dismiss for civil claims based on a person’s speech or petitioning activity in legislative, executive, judicial, administrative, or other governmental proceedings, as well as speech on matters of public concern protected by the federal or state constitution. It is designed to provide an early procedural mechanism to test and dismiss claims that target protected public expression, and it applies to civil actions filed on or after August 28, 2025.
Under the bill, once a qualifying motion is filed, most proceedings and discovery are stayed while the court quickly determines whether the case should be dismissed. The court must rule on the motion on an expedited timeline, may allow limited discovery only when necessary, and must dismiss the claim with prejudice if the moving party shows the statute applies and the responding party cannot establish a prima facie case or otherwise survive dismissal. The bill also provides for immediate appeal rights and mandatory awards of costs, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses to the prevailing party in certain circumstances. The act is to be construed broadly to protect free speech, press, assembly, petition, and association rights, and it includes a directive to promote uniformity with other states adopting the same model law.
HB1092 would significantly change Missouri civil procedure by creating a specialized anti-SLAPP-style dismissal process for lawsuits arising from protected public expression. It would affect plaintiffs and defendants in defamation, petitioning, and other speech-related civil cases by shifting the litigation timeline, limiting discovery, and increasing the likelihood of early dismissal and fee-shifting when claims are not well supported. The bill also repeals and replaces the current statute governing actions tied to speech at public hearings and meetings, expanding the protection beyond that narrower context to a broader range of public-expression activity.
The bill’s overall framing suggests strong support for free-speech protections and for reducing litigation burdens on people speaking in public or governmental forums. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the available materials. The bill text itself emphasizes broad construction, expedited review, and uniformity with other states, indicating a policy preference for robust protection of expressive activity and early screening of weak claims.
The main likely point of contention is the balance between protecting public expression and preserving access to the courts for people who claim harm from speech, including defamation plaintiffs. Critics could object to the stay of discovery, the expedited dismissal process, and mandatory fee shifting, arguing these features may deter legitimate claims. Supporters would likely emphasize that the bill is limited to speech and petitioning on matters of public concern, excludes certain government enforcement actions, and preserves other remedies such as defamation actions where applicable. The bill also carves out communications tied to the sale or lease of goods or services, which may be relevant in disputes over the scope of the protection.