Bill Makes It Easier to Silence Those Speaking Out on Public Concerns

Texans for Lawsuit Reform’s mission statement says it was founded to “fight back against job-killing, abusive lawsuits” and “shut down new abuses of the legal system.” But the so-called tort reform group makes an exception when it comes to one kind of tort: the kind that lets the powerful silence their critics through lawfare.

The group is leading the charge at the Texas Legislature to weaken the Texas Citizens Participation Act, a 13-year-old law designed to stop frivolous SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation). SLAPP lawsuits are often baseless defamation suits filed to punish individuals or organizations for speaking out on matters of public concern.

The Citizens Participation Act provides a critical safeguard by allowing defendants to seek early dismissal of these lawsuits and to appeal immediately if a judge refuses to dismiss the case. That’s precisely the protection Texans for Lawsuit Reform wants to eliminate through Senate Bill 336 and its companion, House Bill 2459.

Why would an organization that claims to fight frivolous lawsuits want to gut a law that does exactly that? Its position is hypocritical. The group’s millionaire backers are all for reforms that prevent ordinary Texans from suing them, but they’re happy to dismantle protections that stop them from using lawsuits to silence their critics.

The Mohamed v. Center for Security Policy case, often referred to as the “Clock Boy” lawsuit, is a prime example of why the Citizens Participation Act matters. In 2015, Ahmed Mohamed’s arrest for bringing a homemade clock to school that some thought resembled a timebomb became a national controversy.

His family then sued several conservative commentators and media organizations for defamation after they criticized the incident and questioned the motives behind the ensuing media frenzy.

Among the defendants was conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, who had simply discussed the case on air. Thanks to the Citizens Participation Act, the defendants were able to secure a quick dismissal and full reimbursement of their attorney’s fees. Without the law, they could have been dragged through years of litigation simply for talking about a major news story.

Similarly, Texas Right to Life, Texas’ leading pro-life organization, has repeatedly relied on the act to fend off lawsuits designed to silence its advocacy. In 2021, Planned Parenthood sued Texas Right to Life for publicizing the ability of private citizens to sue anyone who “aids or abets” an abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy under Texas’ abortion law, known as Senate Bill 8. The pro-life group used the act to defend its constitutional rights, ensuring that advocacy on abortion policy remains protected.  

Another case illustrating the importance of the Citizens Participation Act involved Mark Lee Dickson, a pro-life activist known for his work advocating for “Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn.” In 2020, Dickson was sued for defamation because he claimed that abortion is murder and that organizations funding abortion are criminals.

Because his anti-SLAPP motion was originally denied and that denial was affirmed on appeal, his case was dragged through the courts for over two years before finally being dismissed as without merit by the Texas Supreme Court. While he ultimately “won,” the legal and financial strain of the lawsuit caused serious harm—not just to him but to pro-life activism in general, casting a chilling effect on those who would dare speak out against abortion.

Likewise, a recent column by ProPublica editor Charles Ornstein illustrates the dangers of weakening the act by removing the provision that puts a case on hold (a “stay”) if a SLAPP victim appeals when a trial judge refuses to dismiss his case. Ornstein spent six years fighting a frivolous libel claim filed by a Texas surgeon where the trial court got it wrong—twice.

Originally, the trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motion without considering Ornstein’s defenses, and eventually, on appeal, the case was remanded back to the trial court to do what it should have done the first time: consider Ornstein’s defenses of truth and privilege. Instead, the second time around, the trial court rubber-stamped the findings. Eventually, the appeals court reversed the denial of the anti-SLAPP motion and dismissed the case.

The only saving grace in all of this was the fact that the Citizens Participation Act put the underlying case on hold and halted costly discovery while the appellate court considered the constitutional concerns. Even with the act in place, the ordeal left Ornstein “acutely aware how even when you win a lawsuit, you can still lose.” His case underscores how critical this law is to protecting those who don’t have deep pockets to fund endless legal battles.

Ornstein was lucky—ProPublica covered his legal fees—but journalists spent countless hours working with lawyers rather than reporting news, which left the public without information it would have otherwise received. The nonprofit news organization’s insurance costs skyrocketed. Ornstein was even denied a mortgage because he truthfully answered a question about whether he was a defendant in a lawsuit. All of this happened, even though he ultimately won.

The consequences of weakening the Texas Citizens Participation Act go beyond just prominent conservatives, pro-life activists, and journalists. Everyday Texans also depend on it to protect their right to engage in political speech, report on wrongdoing, and hold powerful institutions accountable.

Consider small-town journalists who expose corruption in local government. Without the act, they could be tied up in court for years and their publications bankrupted by legal fees before they ever get a chance to defend themselves.

Or consider citizen activists who criticize unethical business practices—without the act, those businesses could file lawsuits to silence dissent, knowing full well they might not win in the end but could financially exhaust their critics.

The part of the Citizens Participation Act that Texans for Lawsuit Reform wants to scrap is the provision that puts a case on hold if a SLAPP victim appeals when a trial judge refuses to dismiss his case. If Senate Bill 336 or House Bill 2459 get passed, victims of these harassing lawsuits could be left fighting their attackers on two fronts: in a trial court and in a court of appeals, all at the same time. Not to mention the mess it would make of the court system—resulting in anything but the judicial economy Texans for Lawsuit Reform professes to promote.

But here’s the reality: people who file SLAPP lawsuits don’t care if they ultimately lose at trial. Their goal is to drown their critics in litigation costs, draining their resources until they can no longer speak out. These kinds of lawsuits not only distract nonprofit advocacy organizations, like Texas Right to Life, from serving their communities, they can push them into insolvency. And that’s not to mention the impact defending such a lawsuit can have on individuals who criticize the powers that be. 

This is particularly egregious given Texans for Lawsuit Reform’s history of supporting the Texas Citizens Participation Act when it was first passed in 2011. Back then, the organization recognized the real threat posed by meritless lawsuits designed to stifle speech.

But now, perhaps due to pressure from powerful interests that benefit from SLAPP suits, the group has reversed course. The same organization that once championed tort reform is now actively working to undermine one of the most successful tort reform laws in Texas history.

The millionaires behind Texans for Lawsuit Reform support reforms that prevent you from suing them, but they’re all too eager to undermine reforms that stop them from suing you. Their efforts to gut the Citizens Participation Act should be no less shocking than if PETA were caught selling fur coats.

The act protects Texans across the ideological spectrum, from grassroots activists to government watchdogs to online reviewers. Weakening it would embolden litigious corporations, political operatives, and deep-pocketed individuals to use the courts as a cudgel against their opponents. The impact would be devastating not just for those sued, but for the fundamental principles of free speech and open debate in Texas.

Tort reform advocates’ disdain for expensive litigation disappears when they’re the ones filing the lawsuits. Texans should reject these disingenuous, self-serving attacks and tell their lawmakers to leave the Citizens Participation Act alone, ensuring that all of us—whether pro-life advocates, journalists, or everyday citizens—can continue speaking truth to power without fear of retaliation.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.

The post Bill Makes It Easier to Silence Those Speaking Out on Public Concerns appeared first on The Daily Signal.