End Foreign Abuse of United States Courts Act
SB 3983, the “End Foreign Abuse of United States Courts Act,” would create a new federal procedure for quickly dismissing certain lawsuits brought by foreign governments, foreign agents, foreign instrumentalities, and other covered foreign persons when the suit is based on, or retaliates against, protected speech or political activity. The bill is aimed at strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPP-style actions, that are intended to chill First Amendment activity such as petitioning government, speaking on public issues, filing complaints, or participating in public debate.
The bill adds a new chapter to title 28 of the U.S. Code establishing a special motion to dismiss for these covered claims. If the defendant shows the case falls within the bill’s definition and the plaintiff cannot prove an exception applies, the court must dismiss the claim with prejudice. The bill also imposes a stay on related proceedings while the motion is pending, requires an expedited ruling within 90 days, and allows immediate interlocutory appeal if the motion is denied. Prevailing defendants would generally be entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs, and punitive damages could be awarded if the claim was brought to harass or delay litigation.
The bill would amend federal civil procedure law by creating a new dismissal mechanism in title 28 for cases involving foreign-adversary SLAPP claims, and it would also make conforming changes to federal appellate jurisdiction and removal rules. It would allow defendants to remove qualifying cases to federal court even when the federal defense is not apparent on the face of the complaint, and it would require remand to state court if the special motion to dismiss is denied in full after removal. The bill expressly preserves other substantive claims, remedies, and defenses under federal, state, and local law, but it would add a new federal layer of protection for defendants targeted by foreign-state or foreign-person litigation tied to speech and political activity.
The available context suggests generally favorable or bipartisan support in concept, as the bill was introduced by Senator Shaheen with Senator Cassidy, indicating cross-party sponsorship. There are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided material, so there is no direct evidence of opposition or amendment debate. The bill’s framing around protecting First Amendment activity and preventing abuse of U.S. courts by foreign adversaries suggests a security- and free-speech-oriented rationale that is likely to be broadly appealing.
The main points of contention would likely center on how broadly the bill defines a “covered country,” “covered foreign person,” and “covered protected speech or political activity,” because those definitions determine which cases can be dismissed early. Another likely issue is the breadth of the removal and fee-shifting provisions, which could be viewed as favoring defendants and potentially limiting access to courts for plaintiffs with legitimate claims. The exceptions for commercial disputes, U.S. government actors, and bodily injury/wrongful death claims narrow the bill’s reach, but questions may remain about whether the Secretary of State’s role in identifying countries with a pattern of frivolous litigation gives the executive branch too much discretion.