North Dakota lawmakers could soon consider legislation designed to shield residents from strategic lawsuits intended to stifle free speech. A bill to protect against what are known as "strategic lawsuits against public participation," or SLAPPs, may go before the North Dakota Legislature in January. North Dakota’s delegation to the national Uniform Law Commission has recommended that the state adopt the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act.
SLAPP lawsuits are described as frivolous legal actions aimed at wasting the time and money of individuals or groups who speak out on matters of public interest, ultimately seeking to silence them. While most states have enacted laws to prevent such cases from advancing in their courts, North Dakota has not.
Members of North Dakota’s delegation to the Uniform Law Commission informed the North Dakota Monitor that while they do not perceive SLAPP suits as a current widespread issue in the state, the absence of anti-SLAPP legislation could make North Dakota vulnerable to attracting them. North Dakota Supreme Court Justice Jerod Tufte, who chairs the state delegation, indicated that the policy drafted by the commission could help ensure the state does not become a haven for frivolous lawsuits meant to curb free speech. Justice Tufte stated, “I don’t know that we want to wait until we have a big problem.”
The issue of anti-SLAPP legislation has emerged in an ongoing legal dispute with local relevance. Energy Transfer, the developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline, filed a lawsuit against the environmental group Greenpeace. Greenpeace has alleged that Energy Transfer’s lawsuit is a SLAPP. Southwest Judicial District Judge James Gion, who presides over that case, has ruled that he cannot evaluate whether the case is a SLAPP because North Dakota currently lacks legislation recognizing this legal tactic.
A Morton County jury in March 2025 sided with Energy Transfer in the case, a verdict Greenpeace has stated it will appeal. Energy Transfer claims Greenpeace is responsible for encouraging anti-pipeline protesters to damage its property near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in 2016 and 2017, and for orchestrating a campaign to defame the company. Greenpeace, in turn, alleges that Energy Transfer’s claims are baseless and that the lawsuit is a strategy to harm the environmental movement. Greenpeace’s global affiliate, Greenpeace International, has also countersued Energy Transfer in the Netherlands, citing a European Union directive against SLAPP lawsuits.
Justice Tufte confirmed that members of North Dakota’s Uniform Law Commission delegation are aware the state’s lack of anti-SLAPP legislation has been mentioned in the Greenpeace case, though the commission has not extensively discussed the lawsuit. Lane Shetterly, a former Oregon lawmaker who led the group that drafted the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, said that while he is not familiar with the specifics of the Energy Transfer case against Greenpeace, the drafting group considered organizations like Greenpeace as susceptible to SLAPP tactics. He added that lawful protest and speech are precisely the kinds of actions an anti-SLAPP statute aims to protect from years of litigation. Shetterly also noted that members of the media can be vulnerable to these legal strategies, citing a 2017 West Virginia defamation case involving mining executive Robert Murray and talk show host John Oliver as an example; that suit was dismissed in 2018.
The Uniform Law Commission, which seeks areas where interstate policy collaboration is beneficial, drafted the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act in 2020. The goal was to establish stronger and more consistent anti-SLAPP legislation across the country. Justice Tufte noted that many uniform acts gain greater value when widely adopted by states. Seventeen states have adopted this specific act since 2020, and more have implemented similar legislation, according to the organization’s website. Shetterly stated that these states have reported a "high degree of satisfaction" with the law and have not faced major implementation issues.
A range of organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Right to Life Committee, and several First Amendment rights groups, have expressed support for the policy.
The North Dakota delegation of the commission voted this summer to recommend state lawmakers adopt the act. If the 2027 Legislature passes the proposal, it would create an official procedure for North Dakota state courts to handle potential SLAPP cases. Under the proposed law, defendants who believe they are being sued in retaliation for their free speech could formally request the case's dismissal early in the lawsuit process. The law would require defendants to provide evidence supporting their claim, and plaintiffs would have an opportunity to demonstrate their suit is legitimate and legally viable. Should a lawsuit be found frivolous under the act, the plaintiff would be required to pay the defendant’s legal expenses. Republican state Rep. Lawrence Klemin, also a member of North Dakota’s Uniform Law Commission, described the proposed process as an expeditious way of dismissing such lawsuits. He will sponsor the act during the 2027 legislative session and anticipates it will not be controversial, noting its perceived role in protecting constitutional rights.
