Michigan Joins Majority of States in Enacting Anti-SLAPP Law (US)

Key Takeaways

• Michigan becomes 39th state with Anti‑SLAPP law.
• Employees can dismiss meritless suits and recover fees.
• No federal Anti‑SLAPP law; legislation stalled in Congress.
• Laws vary: strict in CA, TX, NY; lax in MA.
• Employers must reassess litigation strategies under new state law.

Summary

On March 24, 2026 Michigan enacted its version of an Anti‑SLAPP statute, becoming the 39th state to adopt such protections for speech on matters of public concern. The law allows employees sued for exercising First Amendment rights to move for dismissal early in the case and, if successful, to recover attorney fees and court costs from the employer. By providing a procedural shield, the statute aims to deter meritless lawsuits that chill workplace speech. The move highlights the patchwork of state‑level anti‑SLAPP regimes in the absence of federal legislation.

Pulse Analysis

Anti‑SLAPP legislation has become a cornerstone of free‑speech protection in the United States, and Michigan’s entry into the cohort marks a pivotal expansion of that safety net. The state’s statute mirrors the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, granting defendants a swift mechanism to dismiss claims that target protected expression. By codifying a fee‑shifting provision, Michigan sends a clear signal that courts will not tolerate lawsuits designed solely to silence critics. This development aligns the Great Lakes state with progressive jurisdictions such as California and New York, where robust anti‑SLAPP frameworks already exist.

For employers, the new law demands a more disciplined approach to litigation involving employee speech. Before filing a defamation or tortious interference claim, counsel must demonstrate a substantial factual and legal basis, or risk an automatic dismissal and a hefty fee award. Employees, meanwhile, gain a powerful deterrent against retaliation, encouraging whistle‑blowing and open dialogue on issues ranging from workplace safety to corporate governance. The fee‑recovery aspect not only compensates plaintiffs but also creates a monetary penalty that can outweigh the perceived benefits of a punitive lawsuit.

The absence of a federal anti‑SLAPP statute leaves the regulatory landscape fragmented, prompting states to compete on the breadth of their protections. While Michigan joins the majority, several states retain narrow or no anti‑SLAPP provisions, generating uncertainty for multi‑state employers. Legal practitioners are advising clients to conduct a jurisdictional audit of existing statutes and to embed speech‑risk assessments into their litigation strategies. As Congress continues to stall on a national bill, state‑level reforms like Michigan’s are likely to accelerate, shaping the future of employer‑employee relations and free‑speech jurisprudence.