A bill designed to protect individuals from costly legal challenges for exercising their free speech could come before North Dakota lawmakers during the 2027 legislative session. The proposal, known as the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, has been recommended for adoption by North Dakota’s delegation to the national Uniform Law Commission. Its aim is to deter “strategic lawsuits against public participation,” or SLAPP suits, which are defined as frivolous legal actions intended to silence public interest speech by draining a defendant's time and money. North Dakota currently lacks such protective legislation, differing from most other states.
The absence of anti-SLAPP legislation in North Dakota has already been noted in a prominent legal dispute involving Morton County. Southwest Judicial District Judge James Gion ruled he could not evaluate claims that a lawsuit brought by the Dakota Access Pipeline developer, Energy Transfer, against environmental group Greenpeace was a SLAPP suit, citing the lack of state law. A Morton County jury sided with Energy Transfer in March 2025, a verdict Greenpeace plans to appeal. While North Dakota Supreme Court Justice Jerod Tufte, who chairs the state delegation, stated that members are aware of this aspect of the Greenpeace case, he also mentioned the commission has not discussed it extensively.
Should the 2027 Legislature pass the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, it would establish an official procedure for state courts to address potential SLAPP cases. Under the proposed law, defendants who believe they are being sued in retaliation for their free speech would be able to formally request dismissal early in the lawsuit. Defendants would be required to provide evidence to support their claim, and plaintiffs would have an opportunity to demonstrate the legitimacy and legal viability of their suit. If a court finds a lawsuit to be frivolous under the act, the plaintiff would be mandated to pay the defendant’s legal expenses. State Rep. Lawrence Klemin, another member of North Dakota’s Uniform Law Commission, noted that the process “all happens very fast, considering the way litigation usually goes,” providing an “expeditious way of getting that kind of lawsuit thrown out of court.”
Although members of North Dakota’s Uniform Law Commission delegation do not believe SLAPP suits are a significant issue in the state currently, they expressed concern that North Dakota risks attracting them given that most other states have already adopted anti-SLAPP legislation. Justice Tufte stated, “I don’t know that we want to wait until we have a big problem,” indicating a proactive approach. The Uniform Law Commission developed the model Uniform Public Expression Protection Act in 2020 to standardize and strengthen anti-SLAPP laws across the country. Lane Shetterly, a former Oregon lawmaker who led the group that drafted the act, said lawful protest and speech are precisely the kinds of actions the legislation is designed to protect.
Since 2020, seventeen states have adopted the Uniform Law Commission’s specific act, with more states passing similar legislation. According to Shetterly, these states have reported a “high degree of satisfaction” with the law and no major implementation issues. A range of organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Right to Life Committee, have publicly supported the policy. Shetterly also noted that members of the media can be vulnerable to these tactics, citing a 2017 West Virginia defamation case as an example.
State Rep. Klemin confirmed that the North Dakota Uniform Law Commission will sponsor the act during the 2027 legislative session. While he has not yet received feedback from other state lawmakers on the proposal, he expects it will not be controversial, stating that “It seems like an idea that protects your constitutional rights.” The North Dakota delegation voted this summer to recommend the act's adoption.
