Illinois Supreme Court Issues Ruling in Anti-SLAPP Suit

On January 20, 2012, the Illinois Supreme Court issued its ruling in Sandholm v. Kuecker, a case involving the Illinois Citizen Participation Act (735 ILCS 110/1 et seq.) ("Act"), Illinois' anti-SLAPP legislation.  The Court held that the Act did not bar Steve Sandholm, the former basketball coach and athletic director of Dixon Public School District No. 170, from bringing a defamation action against local residents who campaigned for his removal.  The case will be sent back down to the state trial court to address the substance of Sandholm's claims.

As previously reported on our website, in Sandholm,several local residents campaigned to remove Sandholm because they disagreed with his coaching style.  The residents formed a group titled, "Save Dixon Sports Committee." One of its members authored and published an article on the committee's website, accusing the plaintiff of being excessively abusive, humiliating and bullying players. The committee then sent a petition to the school board to remove the plaintiff. The petition also was posted on the committee's website. Statements made by some of the committee members also were published in several local news outlets, including a local radio station.

The school district removed Sandholm as the basketball coach on April 23, 2008, although he continued to work as the school's athletic director. The board removed him as the athletic director the following year. Sandholm responded by filing a defamation lawsuit against the residents. The board was not named as a defendant in the suit.

The trial court dismissed the defamation actions against the defendants, finding that their statements and acts were protected under the Illinois Citizen Participation Act, Illinois' anti-SLAPP statute.  The Act protects defendants from lawsuits where the suit is "based on, relates to, or is in response to any act or acts of the [defendant] in furtherance of the [defendant's] rights of petition, speech, association, or to otherwise participate in government." 735 ILCS 110/15.  The court also awarded defendants' attorneys' fees of over $54,000 for portions of the case that dealt with application of the Act.  

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision.  It found that the Act created a "new qualified privilege for any defamatory statements communicated in furtherance of one's right to petition, speak, assemble, or otherwise participate in government even with actual malice."  Under this interpretation of the Act, an individual could not be sued for defamation even if the person knew or should have known that he or she made a false statement so long as the statement was genuinely aimed at procuring favorable government action.  Sandholm appealed this decision to the Illinois Supreme Court. 

In deciding this case, the Illinois Supreme Court carefully reviewed the purpose of the Act.  According to the Court, the purpose of the Act is to eliminate or discourage utterly meritless lawsuits that are filed in an effort to stifle citizen participation in government.  Thus, the Act should apply only when the plaintiff's lawsuit is based solely on the defendant's petitioning activities.  As the Court stated, "if the plaintiff's intent in bringing suit is to recover damages for alleged defamation and not to stifle or chill defendant's rights of petition, speech, association, or participation in government, it is not a SLAPP and does not fall under the purview of the Act."   

The Court's ruling will require trial courts to closely examine the plaintiff's intent in filing the lawsuit to determine whether the suit is aimed legitimately at addressing a legal harm or whether the suit is a meritless attempt to stifle free speech.  This type of review will necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.