SB 1067 repeals Missouri’s existing section 537.528 and replaces it with a new section 537.529 adopting the “Uniform Public Expression Protection Act.” The bill creates a special motion to dismiss for civil claims based on a person’s speech, petitioning, association, or communications made in legislative, executive, judicial, administrative, or other governmental proceedings, as well as on matters of public concern. It is designed to provide an early mechanism for courts to screen and dismiss lawsuits that target protected public expression.
The bill sets detailed procedures for filing and deciding the special motion, including automatic stays of related proceedings and discovery, expedited hearing and ruling deadlines, limited discovery only for good cause, immediate appeal rights for denials, and mandatory fee-shifting for prevailing parties. It also specifies exceptions, including actions against governmental units or officials acting officially, enforcement actions addressing imminent threats to public health or safety, and certain commercial speech disputes involving goods or services. The new section applies to civil actions filed or causes of action asserted on or after August 28, 2026.
Impact
The bill would substantially revise Missouri law governing civil actions tied to public expression by replacing the current anti-SLAPP-style statute with a broader uniform act. It would affect plaintiffs bringing defamation, retaliation, or other speech-related claims, and would give defendants a stronger procedural tool to seek early dismissal and recover attorney’s fees and litigation expenses if they prevail. Courts would also be required to apply the statute broadly and in a manner consistent with uniformity among states adopting the act.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests strong support for the bill, with the Missouri Senate passing third reading unanimously, 31-0. No committee transcript excerpts are available, but the bill’s structure and the lack of recorded opposition in the provided history indicate broad agreement on strengthening protections for public expression and reducing burdensome litigation. The measure appears to have been treated as a procedural reform rather than a controversial policy change.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are the scope of the protected speech and the effect on plaintiffs’ ability to pursue civil claims. Critics of similar laws often argue that special dismissal procedures and automatic stays can delay legitimate lawsuits and increase barriers for defamation or other injury claims, while supporters view them as necessary to deter strategic lawsuits intended to silence public participation. The bill addresses some concerns by excluding certain government enforcement actions, imminent public health or safety actions, and commercial speech disputes, but those carve-outs may still be debated in application.