State slapp suites in sdny court, 2nd distric
Executive summary
Federal courts sitting in New York have repeatedly grappled with whether and how state anti‑SLAPP statutes — particularly New York’s expanded 2020 law — can be used in cases filed in the Southern District of New York or reviewed by the Second Circuit, producing a mixed and unsettled body of authority: some SDNY judges have applied New York’s protections, others have declined to apply procedural mechanisms like the special motion to strike or the statute’s fee‑shifting provisions in federal forum, and the Second Circuit’s precedents and related decisions leave open key Erie and conflict‑preemption questions [1] [2] [3].
1. The legal question at the center: Erie, procedure vs. substance
The dispute is fundamentally an Erie‑doctrine conflict about whether parts of a state anti‑SLAPP scheme are substantive law — and therefore followable in federal court — or procedural mechanisms that conflict with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, meaning federal courts must refuse to apply them; commentators and courts in the Second Circuit have reached different conclusions on whether New York’s amended statute creates substantive rights that federal courts must enforce [3] [4].
2. How SDNY has ruled so far: piecemeal and case‑specific outcomes
Southern District judges have split on which elements of New York’s anti‑SLAPP law are available in federal court: some rulings, including Judge Rakoff’s decision in Palin, treated the amended law as applicable to pending cases; other SDNY decisions have held that the statute’s special motion to strike provision conflicts with federal procedure and is thus inapplicable while recognizing that fee recovery claims may be pursued by alternative means — a doctrinal patchwork that yields uneven relief for defendants seeking early dismissal and fee shifting [1] [2].
3. Second Circuit and influential precedents: not a uniform map
The Second Circuit has a history of anti‑SLAPP engagement going back to high‑profile matters such as Adelson v. Harris, and recent litigation in the circuit — alongside Ninth Circuit developments — has generated new challenges about whether and how California’s and New York’s anti‑SLAPP laws apply in federal diversity cases; the result is active litigation and scholarly debate rather than a single controlling rule [5] [3].
4. Practical effects in SDNY litigation: discovery stays, appeals, and fee fights
Where federal judges accept the substantive reach of state anti‑SLAPP provisions, defendants can secure a stay of discovery and seek early dismissal and attorneys’ fees — protections designed to blunt SLAPP tactics — but where courts find procedural conflict, defendants may lose the procedural advantages (like the special motion to strike) even if a separate fee claim survives; SDNY rulings have specifically wrestled with whether the statute’s mandatory fee‑shifting can be invoked in federal court, with cases like Max v. Lissner and Carroll illustrating the split and practical uncertainty for media and critics sued in federal venue [6] [2] [7].
5. Stakes, stakeholders, and what to watch next
The posture of courts in SDNY and the Second Circuit matters to journalists, nonprofits and critics who rely on anti‑SLAPP protections to avoid costly litigation, and to plaintiffs who argue federal procedure cannot be displaced; hidden agendas exist on both sides — plaintiffs forum‑shop for federal forums they view as favorable while critics push for broad application of state protections — and the story remains dynamic as courts, commentators, and state legislatures press the boundaries of Erie analysis and seek legislative or appellate clarification [8] [4] [3].