Michigan
This guide was authored by Zivile Raskauskaite, Skye Lucas, and Sara George, working with Professor Jared Schroeder at the Missouri School of Journalism. Grant support for this project was provided by the Society to Protect Journalists and the Reynolds Journalism Institute.
Anti-SLAPP protection: Michigan does not have an anti-SLAPP law.
Helpful cases: While Michigan lawmakers have never passed an anti-SLAPP law, judges in the state have addressed SLAPP-related concerns. The mentions are noteworthy, though they do not amount to a precedent-based anti-SLAPP protection.
- Thomas M. Cooley Law School v. Doe 1, 300 Mich. App. 245 (2013): The law school filed a complaint against “John Doe 1” alleging defamation arising from statements criticizing the school posted anonymously on a blog. A subpoena was issued in an attempt to uncover Doe 1’s account information from the blog platform. In response, Doe 1 requested that the subpoena be quashed or that the court issue a protective order to prevent the disclosure of his identity. The trial court denied this request in part based on a finding that “defamatory statements per se were not entitled to First Amendment protections.” Id. at 268. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court failed to evaluate whether there was good cause for a protective order and that the trial court misunderstood defamation per se as a matter of law. It also found that Michigan discovery rules adequately protected the First Amendment interests at issue: “under Michigan law, the plaintiff must allege the exact defamatory statements. The plaintiff will have to survive an actual motion for summary disposition on its claims under MCR 2.116(C)(8). And the trial court may consider the weight of the defendant’s First Amendment rights against the plaintiff’s discovery request when determining whether to issue a protective order.” Id. at 266.
- Marcum v. Euclid Media Group, No. 2022-191877-CZ (Mich. Cir. Ct. Jan. 4, 2022) (unpublished): Paul Marcum sued media outlets over articles depicting him performing a Nazi salute and yelling ‘Heil Hitler’ during a discussion regarding mask mandates at a local school board meeting. Marcum sued the publications asserting seven causes of action, including defamation. Deadline Detroit filed a motion for a summary disposition, which was granted by the court because the court determined the challenged statements were substantially true and privileged under the fair report privilege, as the article “mirror[ed] the public record.” The defamation claims and others against Deadline Detroit were dismissed, but the court denied Deadline Detroit’s request for sanctions due to its failure to adequately brief or support the request.
- Kaucheck v. Detroit Free Press, 2020 WL 3120357 (Mich. Ct. App. June 11, 2020): Plaintiff, a former Catholic priest, sued the Detroit Free Press alleging defamation after the newspaper published an article stating that the plaintiff was removed from his post as a priest due to alleged sexual misconduct. Plaintiff claimed that the newspaper incorrectly implied that he had “been criminally convicted of a sexual misconduct offense,” when in fact “it was only alleged that plaintiff had engaged in sexual misconduct.” Id. at *6. The trial court granted summary judgment to the newspaper and dismissed the defamation claim, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that the challenged statements were either materially true or were nonactionable statements of opinion.
Legislative activity: There have been several attempts to pass anti-SLAPP legislation in Michigan.
In 2010, the House passed HB 5036 allowing the dismissal of cases relating to a defendant’s right to free speech or petition. The bill included provisions that halted discovery and awarded litigation costs. The bill died in Senate committee.
In 2020, a similar bill was introduced to the House that sought to implement common anti-SLAPP provisions if a civil action arises out of the defendant’s right to free speech or petition. These included staying discovery and awarding litigation fees. The bill died in committee.
Of Note: While Michigan has no anti-SLAPP law, it does have legislation allowing sanctions for the filing of frivolous lawsuits generally. For example, under MCL 600.2591, if a civil action or defense is found to be frivolous by the court, it “shall award to the prevailing party the costs and fees incurred by that party in connection with the civil action by assessing the costs and fees against the non-prevailing party and their attorney.” Courts have sometimes ordered the plaintiff to pay sanctions pursuant to this statute for the filing of a frivolous defamation claim. See, e.g., Boss v. Loomis, Ewert, Parsley, Davis, & Gotting, PC, 2010 WL 935642, at *7 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2010); Evergreen Home Health Care, LLC v. Wilson, 2009 WL 3365752, at *4 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 20, 2009).