How a Small-Town Newspaper Inspired South Dakota’s Anti-SLAPP Law

By Maya Mukherjee

Sen. Amber Hulse, R-S.D., first encountered anti-SLAPP laws as an attorney, when the law firm where she works defended President Donald Trump in a 2024 lawsuit stemming from comments he made during a presidential debate, and the case introduced Hulse to laws designed to defend people from burdensome litigation aimed at chilling protected speech. When a small-town newspaper in her district later became embroiled in an expensive lawsuit, Hulse saw an opportunity to apply her legal expertise to strengthen free-speech protections for South Dakotans. 

“It was really amazing for me to take something that I do in my day job and put those protections in place for people of all ages, backgrounds, demographics, parties,” Hulse said in an interview with Future Caucus.

SLAPP stands for “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation,” a term for (often frivolous) lawsuits filed not in the pursuit of justice, but in an effort to intimidate, silence, and drain the financial resources of an individual or organization’s critics by forcing them into protracted, expensive legal battles. Many defendants choose to settle or simply desist, cowed by the prospect of exorbitant legal fees, damages, and months — or even years — of litigation.

Hulse was moved to act by the experience of the Custer County Chronicle. When residents of Custer City sued the city over a plan to reroute creek water through a treatment plant, the city subpoenaed the paper for information they were believed to have about the case. This process was lengthy and costly for the Chronicle, and the incident opened Hulse’s eyes to the perniciousness of SLAPP.

When Hulse’s bill — a version of the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA) — was enacted on July 1, 2026, South Dakota became the 40th state to pass an anti-SLAPP law. Specifically, UPEPA allows defendants sued over protected speech or other public expression to file a special motion to have the lawsuit dismissed quickly, pausing discovery proceedings while the court considers the motion. If the court decides the case is not legally viable and dismisses it, the defendant can recover attorney’s fees and court costs. 

When Hulse introduced her bill in January, it was met with widespread bipartisan support. Hulse noted that both Turning Point USA and the ACLU, groups that rarely find themselves on the same side of an issue, testified in favor of the measure, as did the owner of the Custer County Chronicle. The bill passed nearly unanimously through both chambers of the legislature. 

“It was interesting to watch moderates, the far-right Freedom Caucus and Democrats all be in favor of it in one shape or form,” Hulse recalled. “Because they could all come up with an instance in their own mind where they felt potentially silenced at the threat of some kind of lawsuit for fear of speaking out.”

When South Dakota Gov. Larry Rhoden signed the bill into law in March, he did it at Custer High School, where he and Hulse spoke with students about their First Amendment Rights and how anti-SLAPP laws can protect students who speak out about their school.

“It was really cool to have other young people hear about their rights, and they ask such good questions,” Hulse said. “And it was really amazing to have the governor in my district to sign that bill in front of young people — the next generation.”

Hulse attributed the bill’s success in part to the convergence of her legal expertise and witnessing real-life consequences of baseless litigation aimed at shutting down protected speech.

“I had that newspaper in my own district that had this issue, and then me being an attorney that works in this area of law — I think those two things really helped give this some credibility and push this over the edge,” Hulse said. “It was just amazing to take what I had prepared my whole life to do and become a lawmaker and become a lawyer that protects these types of constitutional rights.”