Legal Experts Say It’s Rare to Lose an Anti-SLAPP Victory on Appeal.
In a legal system often criticized for its complexity and delays, one type of court motion stands out for its speed and effectiveness: the anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) motion. Designed to swiftly dismiss lawsuits aimed at punishing individuals for exercising their free speech rights, anti-SLAPP laws are increasingly viewed as powerful tools for defending public discourse.
Legal experts say that once a defendant prevails on an anti-SLAPP motion, it’s exceptionally difficult to lose that victory on appeal.
“These laws are meant to stop lawsuits that are really just intimidation tactics,” said a First Amendment attorney with experience in anti-SLAPP litigation. “And once a trial court finds that the speech is protected, appellate courts are usually hesitant to overturn that decision.”
“If you win your anti-SLAPP motion, your odds on appeal are strong,” the attorney added. “You’re on solid legal ground, and the courts recognize the importance of protecting free expression.”
A recent high-profile example involves actress Leah Remini. A Los Angeles Superior Court judge recently granted a sweeping anti-SLAPP motion against Remini, dismissing the bulk of her claims in a lawsuit she filed. The judge ruled that much of the speech at issue was protected under California’s expansive anti-SLAPP statute. Remini has since appealed, but legal analysts say she faces steep odds—not just because appellate reversals are rare, but because, if the dismissal is upheld, she will be liable for substantial attorney’s fees.
Those fees can climb into the hundreds of thousands—or even millions—especially when a case proceeds through the appellate courts. In Remini’s case, legal observers note, the appeal could not only fail but result in significant financial consequences.
Anti-SLAPP statutes have seen a surge in use in recent years, particularly in response to lawsuits over online reviews, public protests, or criticism of influential individuals and corporations.
“The attorney’s fees provision is a major deterrent against frivolous litigation,” the attorney said. “It raises the cost of using the courts as a weapon to silence speech.”
As courts continue to affirm the importance of protecting public discourse, legal analysts say anti-SLAPP laws are becoming a mainstay of First Amendment defense—and that for those who win early, appeals are often little more than a formality.
“The system doesn’t always move quickly,” the attorney noted, “but in anti-SLAPP cases, once you win, it’s very hard to lose—and it can be very costly for the other side.”
A key reason appellate losses are rare is the burden placed on the plaintiff once an anti-SLAPP motion is filed. The person bringing the lawsuit must show they are likely to succeed on the merits—an unusually high standard at the early stages of litigation, when evidence is often sparse.
“In most civil cases, plaintiffs don’t need to prove much to move forward,” the attorney explained. “But with an anti-SLAPP motion, they must demonstrate a likelihood of success at trial. That’s a high bar to clear right out of the gate.”
Even though appellate courts apply a “de novo” standard—meaning they review the issue independently rather than deferring to the trial court—they frequently reach the same conclusion.
Legal experts say this consistency stems from two factors: appellate judges’ caution about allowing lawsuits that could chill free speech, and the solid legal grounding of most successful anti-SLAPP motions, which often rely on clear precedent and constitutional protections.
Another powerful feature of anti-SLAPP laws is that the prevailing party is typically entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs—often substantial. This means defendants not only get meritless lawsuits dismissed, but are also reimbursed for the cost of defending themselves.
As free speech battles continue to play out in the courtroom, experts agree: anti-SLAPP victories are among the most durable wins a defendant can achieve—and among the most expensive losses for a plaintiff to absorb.
