The D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act lets someone sued over their public speech or advocacy file a special motion to dismiss within 45 days of being served. Once filed, the plaintiff has to show the case is likely to succeed on the merits, or the court throws it out. SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, and the statute exists to stop lawsuits whose real purpose is to punish or silence a speaker by running up legal bills.
What Speech the Act Covers
The Act protects what it calls an “act in furtherance of the right of advocacy on issues of public interest.”1D.C. Law Library. District of Columbia Code 16-5501 – Definitions That breaks into two categories. The first is any written or oral statement made in connection with a matter under review by a government body: testifying at a D.C. Council hearing, writing to an agency about a proposed rule, submitting comments in a judicial proceeding. The second is any statement in a public forum about a matter of public interest, plus other expressive conduct that involves petitioning the government or sharing views on such matters with the public.
“Issue of public interest” is defined broadly. It reaches health and safety, environmental or economic well-being, community welfare, the District government, public figures, and goods or services in the marketplace.1D.C. Law Library. District of Columbia Code 16-5501 – Definitions One carve-out matters: statements made primarily to protect the speaker’s own commercial interests, rather than to comment on something of genuine public significance, don’t qualify. A business attacking a competitor and dressing it up as consumer advocacy would fall outside the Act.
Filing the Special Motion to Dismiss
The motion must be filed within 45 days after service of the claim.2D.C. Law Library. District of Columbia Code 16-5502 – Special Motion to Dismiss The statute contains no general extension provision, so missing that window effectively forfeits the right to seek expedited dismissal under the Act. If you’ve been served with a complaint that looks like it targets your protected speech, talk to an attorney familiar with anti-SLAPP practice right away.
In the motion, you have to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff’s claim arises from an act in furtherance of advocacy on an issue of public interest. That typically means declarations or affidavits explaining the context of the speech at issue, with supporting materials attached: transcripts of public meetings, copies of articles, screenshots of online comments. The threshold is not high, but you need to clearly connect the challenged speech to one of the protected categories.
What the Plaintiff Then Has to Prove
Once the defendant clears that initial bar, the burden flips. The court must grant the motion unless the plaintiff shows the claim is likely to succeed on the merits.2D.C. Law Library. District of Columbia Code 16-5502 – Special Motion to Dismiss This is where most SLAPP suits die. A plaintiff who filed mainly to harass rarely has the evidence to clear it.
“Likely to succeed” means more than the allegations in the complaint. The plaintiff must come forward with evidence supporting each element of the claim. In defamation cases involving public figures, the bar is steeper still, because actual malice has to be shown by clear and convincing evidence. The court reviews the written submissions and holds an expedited hearing before the case moves into the expensive phases of litigation.
Protecting Anonymous Speakers
If you’re an anonymous online commenter and someone is trying to unmask you through a subpoena or discovery request connected to a claim arising from protected advocacy, you can file a special motion to quash under section 16-5503.3D.C. Law Library. District of Columbia Code 16-5503 – Special Motion to Quash The same burden-shifting structure applies. You make a prima facie showing that the underlying claim arises from protected activity, and the party seeking your identity then has to show that claim is likely to succeed on the merits.
In Doe v. Burke, the D.C. Court of Appeals confirmed that if a trial court denies a special motion to quash, the anonymous speaker can appeal immediately under the collateral order doctrine, before any identifying information is disclosed.4FindLaw. Doe v. Burke – DC Court of Appeals
Discovery Is No Longer Stayed
The Act originally paused discovery as soon as a special motion was filed, so the plaintiff couldn’t take depositions or demand documents while the motion was pending.2D.C. Law Library. District of Columbia Code 16-5502 – Special Motion to Dismiss That provision is no longer in force. In Banks v. Hoffman, the D.C. Court of Appeals held that the discovery-limiting language conflicts with the Home Rule Act, which requires D.C. Superior Court to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because the stay distinguished the anti-SLAPP motion from a standard summary judgment motion under Federal Rule 56, the court found the D.C. Council had exceeded its authority. The court struck the discovery provision as severable and left the rest of the Act intact.
The practical result: the burden-shifting framework and fee-shifting still work, but plaintiffs now have access to full discovery even while an anti-SLAPP motion is pending. Build your motion with that in mind.
Appealing a Denial
If the trial court denies your special motion to dismiss, you can appeal immediately. The D.C. Court of Appeals established this right in Competitive Enterprise Institute v. Mann, holding that the denial qualifies as a collateral order because it conclusively resolves a disputed legal question separate from the merits and would be effectively unreviewable after final judgment.5FindLaw. Competitive Enterprise Institute and Rand Simberg v. Mann – DC Court of Appeals Without that right, a defendant who lost the motion would have to sit through a full trial before challenging the ruling, which would defeat the point of the statute. The case pauses while the appellate court reviews whether the trial judge applied the framework correctly.
Attorney Fees and Costs
A defendant who wins a special motion to dismiss or a special motion to quash, in whole or in part, can ask the court to award litigation costs and reasonable attorney fees.6D.C. Law Library. District of Columbia Code 16-5504 – Fees and Costs The statute says “may,” so an award is discretionary rather than automatic. When fees are granted, the court looks at hours billed, the complexity of the issues, and prevailing market rates in the District.
Fee-shifting runs both ways. If the court finds that a defendant’s special motion was frivolous or filed solely for delay, it can award fees and costs to the plaintiff.6D.C. Law Library. District of Columbia Code 16-5504 – Fees and Costs A baseless anti-SLAPP motion filed to stall a legitimate lawsuit can leave the defendant paying everyone’s lawyers.
The Act Doesn’t Apply in Federal Diversity Cases
If your case is in or gets removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under diversity jurisdiction, you cannot use the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act. In Abbas v. Foreign Policy Group, LLC, the D.C. Circuit held that Federal Rules 12 and 56 already govern pretrial dismissal and answer the same question with a different standard, so the federal rules control.7Justia Law. Abbas v. Foreign Policy Group LLC – DC Circuit 2015 The same defamation case that could be dismissed through burden-shifting in Superior Court has to be fought with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion or a Rule 56 motion in federal court, neither of which forces the plaintiff to show a likelihood of success early on.