The Anti-SLAPP Defense Guide

What an Anti-SLAPP Statute Actually Does

SLAPP stands for "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation" — a defamation, business-tort, or related claim filed not because the plaintiff expects to win, but to punish the defendant for speaking out and to bleed them through legal fees until they go quiet. Anti-SLAPP statutes are the legislative answer: a fast-track procedure that lets a speech defendant ask the court to throw the case out at the very start, before the expensive parts of litigation begin.

The mechanics are similar across the four states this guide covers, even though the statute names and section numbers differ. The defendant files a special motion early in the case. The court pauses normal discovery. The defendant has the initial burden of showing the lawsuit targets protected speech or petitioning activity. If they meet that burden, the plaintiff has to come forward with admissible evidence supporting each element of the claim — not just allegations in a complaint. If the plaintiff can't, the case is dismissed and, in most of these states, the defendant is awarded their lawyer's fees.

Texas — The Texas Citizens Participation Act

The Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), codified at Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code §§27.001–27.011, is one of the broadest anti-SLAPP statutes in the country. It applies to legal actions "based on or in response to" a party's exercise of the right of free speech, the right to petition, or the right of association — terms the statute defines expansively to reach online reviews, social media posts, journalism, and communications about matters of public concern.

A TCPA motion to dismiss must be filed within 60 days of service of the legal action (the deadline can be extended for good cause). Once filed, §27.003(c) automatically stays most discovery. The movant carries the initial burden by a preponderance of the evidence; if met, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish by clear and specific evidence a prima facie case for each essential element of the claim under §27.005(c). A successful movant is entitled to court costs and reasonable attorney's fees under §27.009(a)(1), and the court may award sanctions sufficient to deter the plaintiff from filing similar actions.

• Filing window: 60 days from service of the petition, extendable for good cause (§27.003(b)).
• Discovery: stayed on filing of the motion, with limited specified discovery available by court order (§27.006(b)).
• Plaintiff's burden if the statute applies: "clear and specific evidence" of a prima facie case for each element.
• Fee-shifting: mandatory award of court costs and reasonable attorney's fees to a prevailing movant (§27.009(a)(1)).
• Appeal: an order denying a TCPA motion is immediately appealable as of right under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code §51.014(a)(12), and that appeal stays trial-court proceedings under §51.014(b).

Arizona — ARS §12-751 et seq.

Arizona's anti-SLAPP statute, Arizona Revised Statutes §§12-751 and 12-752, was significantly expanded by the Arizona Legislature in 2022 to bring it closer to the Texas and Washington models. It now applies to any legal action against a person based on that person's lawful exercise of the right of petition or the right of free speech under the federal or state constitution in connection with a public issue.

An Arizona anti-SLAPP motion must be filed within 60 days after service of the most recent complaint (ARS §12-752(B)), and discovery is stayed pending a ruling. The court must grant the motion unless the responding party shows that the moving party's conduct was not protected by the statute, or that the responding party has established a prima facie case for each essential element of the claim. ARS §12-752(H) directs the court to award the prevailing moving party costs and reasonable attorney's fees, and to award fees to the responding party if it finds the motion was frivolous or solely intended to delay.

• Filing window: 60 days from service of the most recent complaint (ARS §12-752(B)).
• Discovery: stayed when the motion is filed, with court-ordered specified discovery available on a showing of good cause.
• Plaintiff's burden: prima facie case for each essential element of the claim, supported by admissible evidence.
• Fee-shifting: mandatory fees and costs for a prevailing movant; fees available against a movant who files a frivolous or dilatory motion.
• Appeal: Arizona courts have treated the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion as subject to interlocutory review, but the statute does not contain an automatic appeal-stay equivalent to Texas's §51.014(b) — practical effect can vary by court.

Nevada — NRS 41.635 to 41.670

Nevada's anti-SLAPP statute is found at Nevada Revised Statutes §§41.635 through 41.670 and uses a two-prong analysis closely modeled on California's well-developed framework. It protects "good faith communications in furtherance of the right to petition or the right to free speech in direct connection with an issue of public concern," with that key term defined at NRS 41.637.

The special motion to dismiss must be filed within 60 days of service of the complaint, with the court permitted to extend the deadline upon a showing of good cause (NRS 41.660(2)). The movant must first show by a preponderance of the evidence that the claim is based on a protected good-faith communication. The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate with prima facie evidence a probability of prevailing on the claim. NRS 41.670(1) requires the court to award a successful movant reasonable costs and attorney's fees, and authorizes an additional award of up to $10,000.

• Filing window: 60 days after service of the complaint, extendable for good cause (NRS 41.660(2)).
• Discovery: stayed when the motion is filed, with limited discovery available by court order on a showing of good cause (NRS 41.660(4)).
• Plaintiff's burden: prima facie evidence of a probability of prevailing on each claim.
• Fee-shifting: mandatory fees and costs to a prevailing movant, plus a discretionary award up to $10,000 (NRS 41.670(1)).
• Appeal: NRS 41.670(4) provides that an order denying a special motion to dismiss is immediately appealable as a final judgment, and Nevada courts treat the appeal as staying further trial-court proceedings related to the claim.

New Mexico — NMSA §38-2-9.1 and §38-2-9.2

New Mexico's anti-SLAPP rule, codified at New Mexico Statutes Annotated §§38-2-9.1 and 38-2-9.2, is narrower than the Texas, Arizona, and Nevada statutes. It applies to actions "seeking money damages" against a person for conduct or speech "undertaken or made in connection with a public hearing or public meeting in a quasi-judicial proceeding before a tribunal or decision-making body of any political subdivision of the state."

When the statute applies, §38-2-9.1(A) directs the court to consider the special motion to dismiss on an expedited basis and authorizes an award of costs and reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party on the motion. Because the statute is keyed to petitioning activity in front of governmental bodies rather than general public-concern speech, defendants in pure online-defamation cases in New Mexico often have to rely on traditional Rule 12 motions to dismiss instead — making early consultation with counsel especially important when the venue is New Mexico.

• Scope: limited to claims arising from communications in connection with quasi-judicial proceedings of state and local government bodies.
• Procedure: expedited consideration of the special motion to dismiss (§38-2-9.1(A)).
• Fee-shifting: costs and reasonable attorney's fees available to the prevailing party on the motion.
• Appeal: §38-2-9.1(B) authorizes an appeal as a matter of right from an order on the motion, but New Mexico law does not contain an automatic, statute-wide stay of trial-court proceedings during that appeal.
• Coverage gap: pure private-party defamation that is not tied to a quasi-judicial proceeding generally falls outside the statute, even when other states would treat the same speech as protected.

How the Four States Compare at a Glance

The differences across these four jurisdictions matter most in three places: the kinds of speech covered, whether the trial court is automatically paused while an appeal of a denial is pending, and how aggressively fees are awarded. A claim that is a strong anti-SLAPP candidate in Texas or Nevada — say, a critical online review of a business — may not fit the narrower New Mexico statute at all.

Forum selection clauses, choice-of-law provisions, and where the plaintiff actually files can therefore drive the outcome of an anti-SLAPP motion as much as the underlying merits. A defendant served in one of these four states should look at the statute that governs the actual case, not a general assumption that "anti-SLAPP exists everywhere."

• Breadth of covered speech (broadest to narrowest, in general): Texas and Arizona are roughly equal, then Nevada, then New Mexico.
• Automatic stay of trial-court proceedings during an appeal of a denial: Texas (yes, by statute) and Nevada (yes, in practice) provide the strongest protection; Arizona and New Mexico do not have an equivalent automatic stay.
• Mandatory fee-shifting to a prevailing movant: Texas, Arizona, and Nevada all provide for it; Nevada additionally allows up to $10,000 in extra recovery.
• Sanctions against abusive plaintiffs: Texas's TCPA expressly authorizes deterrent sanctions in addition to fees.
• Practical takeaway: in TX/AZ/NV, the 60-day filing window is short, hard, and consequential — calendar it the day the lawsuit is served, not the day a lawyer is finally retained.