The Illinois Supreme Court “SLAPPs” Down the Meritless and Retaliatory Standard

In Anderson v. Smith, 2026 IL 131714, the Illinois Supreme Court resolved a significant dispute over how courts should evaluate motions brought under the Illinois Citizen Participation Act (CPA), Illinois’s anti-SLAPP statute.

The case arose from a contentious public dispute at a press conference concerning a proposed hog farming operation. After criminal charges against the plaintiff were resolved in his favor, he sued for defamation and malicious prosecution. The defendant sought dismissal under the CPA, arguing the lawsuit was a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP).

The Supreme Court used the case to clarify the second prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis established in Sandholm v. Kuecker and later discussed in Glorioso v. Sun-Times Media Holdings, LLC. Rejecting a line of appellate decisions that required defendants to prove a lawsuit was both “meritless and retaliatory,” the Court held that the proper inquiry is whether the plaintiff’s subjective intent was solely to chill, deter, or punish the defendant’s participation in government rather than to obtain genuine relief for an alleged injury.

The Court emphasized that “meritless” and “retaliatory” are descriptive characteristics often associated with SLAPPs but are not independent elements that a defendant must prove. A lawsuit with legal merit may still qualify as a SLAPP if the defendant can demonstrate that its true goal is to suppress protected participation in government.

Equally important, the Court rejected the appellate court’s suggestion that trial courts should conduct evidentiary hearings to determine intent. Instead, courts must decide anti-SLAPP motions based on pleadings and supporting documents, consistent with the CPA’s expedited procedures and discovery stay.

For cases filed before January 1, 2026, Illinois courts must focus on the plaintiff’s true purpose in bringing suit—not whether the claims are merely “meritless and retaliatory.” The decision provides important guidance for litigants navigating anti-SLAPP motions and reinforces the CPA’s role in protecting public participation.