---
url: 'https://www.fmjlaw.com/minnesotas-uniform-public-expression-protection-act-applied-in-dismissal-of-defamation-case/'
title: Minnesota’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act Applied in Dismissal of Defamation Case
author:
  name: Adam
  url: 'https://www.fmjlaw.com/author/adam-brownfmjlaw-com/'
date: '2025-04-15T19:34:26+00:00'
modified: '2025-08-29T18:58:30+00:00'
type: post
summary: This could make it more difficult for Plaintiffs to prevail on defamation claims in Minnesota.
categories:
  - Article
  - Thought Leadership
tags:
  - defamation
  - litigation
published: true
---

# Minnesota’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act Applied in Dismissal of Defamation Case

A Minnesota law enacted on May 24, 2024, the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (“UPEPA” or the “Act”), was cited by a Hennepin County Judge in an order dismissing a defamation lawsuit and awarding fees to the defendants. In *Blackwell v. Collin, et al*, No. 27-CV-24-15500 (April 8, 2025), the Court dismissed a defamation claim by Katie Blackwell, an Assistant Chief of the Minnesota Police Department and, at the time in question, the officer in charge of the Department’s training program. Blackwell testified at the trial of Derek Chauvin, who was convicted of murdering George Floyd. Defendants published a book and documentary about the trial, in which they contended that Blackwell’s testimony asserting that Chauvin’s actions were not consistent with the Department’s training or policy was inaccurate, and they suggested that Blackwell was “lying” in her testimony. After Blackwell sued for defamation, the defendants brought a motion for expedited relief under the UPEPA, Minn. Stat. Section 554.07 et seq. The court granted the motion and awarded fees under the Act to the defendants.

## Anti-SLAPP Statutes

The UPEPA is what is known as an “Anti-SLAPP” law. “SLAPP” stands for “strategic lawsuits against public participation.” The term arose in the late 1980s to describe lawsuits intended not to seek relief or vindicate one’s legal rights, but to silence and intimidate citizens by subjecting them to costly litigation for exercising their First Amendment rights of free speech regarding matters of public concern. Anti-SLAPP laws are designed to allow defendants to file a motion to require the plaintiff to make a prima facie case and explain why the speech is not protected. The motion takes place before the lengthy and costly process of “discovery,” which includes the exchange of documents and other evidence and taking of deposition testimony. The discovery process is “stayed” pending a determination of the motion. If the defendant is successful, they can seek recovery of their attorney’s fees incurred in bringing the motion. More than 30 states have enacted Anti-SLAPP laws.

## Minnesota’s Previous Anti-SLAPP Law

Minnesota enacted an earlier version of an Anti-SLAPP law in 1994 that required the plaintiff to show “clear and convincing evidence” in support of their claims. That legislation was found to be unconstitutional by the Minnesota Supreme Court in *Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota*, 895 N.W.2d 623 (Minn. 2017) because it impaired the right to a jury trial. Minnesota was, therefore, one of a minority of states without an Anti-SLAPP law for several years.

## The Uniform Public Expression Act

At its annual conference in July of 2020, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws approved a model Anti-SLAPP law (the Uniform Public Expression Act) recommended for enactment by all states. The Minnesota Legislature approved a bill enacting the uniform act in 2024 after determining that it did not have the same “constitutional infirmities” that caused the previous version to be unenforceable, and it was signed into law.

The Minnesota law applies to any: “cause of action asserted in a civil action against a person based on the person’s:

- communication in a legislative, executive, judicial, administrative, or other governmental proceeding;

- communication on an issue under consideration or review in a legislative, executive, judicial, administrative, or other governmental proceeding; or

- exercise of the right of freedom of speech or of the press, the right to assemble or petition, or the right of association, guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Minnesota Constitution on a matter of public concern.

See Minn. Stat. Section 554.08 (b). Whether speech involves a matter of “public concern” is a key question to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Notably, however, the Minnesota Supreme Court recently held that a Facebook posting regarding an alleged sexual assault was a matter of public concern because, in part, the person making the post invoked the hashtag “#metoo,” thus linking the post to an international movement. [*Johnson v. Freborg*, 995 N.W.2d 374 (Minn. 2023)](https://www.fmjlaw.com/the-minnesota-supreme-court-expands-the-scope-of-the-public-concern-standard-for-defamation-claims/).

The Act does not apply to a claim “against a person primarily engaged in the business of selling or leasing goods or services if the cause of action arises out of a communication related to the person’s sale or lease of the goods or services,” unless the cause of action is related to “the communication, gathering, receiving, posting, or processing of consumer opinions or commentary, evaluations of consumer complaints, or reviews or ratings of businesses.” Minn. Stat. Section 554.08 (d)(2). This suggests that defamation claims against customers who post negative on-line reviews might be subject to the statute, but the topic would also have to be a matter of public concern.

Under the Minnesota statute, the defendant has 60 days after service of the complaint to file a special motion for expedited relief to dismiss the cause of action or part of the cause of action. Minn. Stat. Section 554.09. Upon the filing of the motion, all other proceedings, including discovery, are stayed. Minn. Stat. Section 554.10. The Court is required to hold a hearing on the motion no later than 60 days after filing of the motion. Minn. Stat. Section 554.11. The parties may submit any proof or evidence they wish to support or oppose the motion, although they do not have the benefit of the discovery process to obtain evidence from the other side.

The Court must dismiss the action if “the responding party fails to establish a prima facie case as to each essential element of the cause of action; or (ii) the moving party establishes that: (A) the responding party failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted; or (B) there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the cause of action or part of the cause of action.” The Court must award reasonable attorney fees to the Defendant if the motion is granted. The Court may also award fees to the Plaintiff (the responding party) if the motion is denied *and* the Court finds that the motion was frivolous or filed solely with intent to delay the proceeding. If Defendant’s motion is denied, in whole or in part, they can appeal the dismissal within 30 days. If the motion to dismiss is granted, the Plaintiff can also appeal.

## Takeaways

The Uniform Public Expression Protection Act will make it more difficult for Plaintiffs to prevail on defamation claims in Minnesota. Other states with Anti-SLAPP legislation have seen a marked decrease in defamation cases. The Act also provides “fee-shifting” for defendants and a tool to fight back against potentially punitive lawsuits. The question of whether an alleged communication was on a topic of “public concern” will become even more important on a case-by-case basis. This law, combined with the Minnesota Supreme Court’s recent rulings, expands First Amendment protection against defamation claims. If you have questions about this article or anything else involving defamation or potential disputes about allegedly false information, please contact [John Ella](https://www.fmjlaw.com/professional/v-john-ella/) or the rest of our [Litigation Practice Group](https://www.fmjlaw.com/practice-area/litigation/).

[](https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fmjlaw.com%2Fminnesotas-uniform-public-expression-protection-act-applied-in-dismissal-of-defamation-case%2F&linkname=Minnesota%E2%80%99s%20Uniform%20Public%20Expression%20Protection%20Act%20Applied%20in%20Dismissal%20of%20Defamation%20Case)[](https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fmjlaw.com%2Fminnesotas-uniform-public-expression-protection-act-applied-in-dismissal-of-defamation-case%2F&linkname=Minnesota%E2%80%99s%20Uniform%20Public%20Expression%20Protection%20Act%20Applied%20in%20Dismissal%20of%20Defamation%20Case)[](https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fmjlaw.com%2Fminnesotas-uniform-public-expression-protection-act-applied-in-dismissal-of-defamation-case%2F&linkname=Minnesota%E2%80%99s%20Uniform%20Public%20Expression%20Protection%20Act%20Applied%20in%20Dismissal%20of%20Defamation%20Case)[](https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fmjlaw.com%2Fminnesotas-uniform-public-expression-protection-act-applied-in-dismissal-of-defamation-case%2F&linkname=Minnesota%E2%80%99s%20Uniform%20Public%20Expression%20Protection%20Act%20Applied%20in%20Dismissal%20of%20Defamation%20Case)