South Dakota's First Anti-SLAPP Law, SB 137, Takes Effect July 1, 2026

South Dakota's First Anti-SLAPP Law, SB 137, Takes Effect July 1, 2026

South Dakota's first anti-SLAPP law, Senate Bill 137, took effect July 1, 2026, giving defendants sued over protected speech on matters of public concern an expedited motion to dismiss, an automatic stay, and mandatory fee-shifting under the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act.

Information last verified on July 8, 2026. This is a developing story; we update it as the record changes.

Status: Effective July 1, 2026. Signed by Gov. Larry Rhoden on March 16, 2026, after passing the Senate 33-0 and the House 65-2.

Jurisdiction scope: SB 137 applies to civil lawsuits filed in South Dakota state courts that target a defendant's protected speech, petitioning, or association on a matter of public concern. It does not create a criminal defense and does not apply outside South Dakota courts. For the state's underlying libel and slander framework that this new procedural tool sits on top of, see South Dakota's defamation laws.

What Happened

Governor Larry Rhoden signed Senate Bill 137 into law on March 16, 2026, after the measure cleared the South Dakota Senate 33-0 on February 9, 2026, and the House of Representatives 65-2 on March 5, 2026. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Amber Hulse, adopts a version of the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), the model anti-SLAPP statute drafted by the Uniform Law Commission, and it took effect July 1, 2026. South Dakota becomes the 16th state to enact a version of UPEPA specifically, joining states such as Ohio, Idaho, Montana, Iowa, Delaware, and Michigan in recent years, and one of roughly 40 states nationwide with some form of anti-SLAPP protection.

Before SB 137, South Dakota was among a shrinking minority of states with no anti-SLAPP statute at all, meaning a person sued over a public complaint, a critical online review, or testimony to a government body had no special early-dismissal tool and had to fight a meritless suit through ordinary, often costly, motion practice and discovery.

Sen. Hulse framed the problem the bill targets this way: "sometimes people with money or power can use the court system to punish or intimidate everyday South Dakotans by filing expensive lawsuits, not to necessarily win on the merits, but to bury the other side in legal fees, stress and discovery processes." Rhoden echoed that rationale when he signed the bill, stating, "Free speech is one of the first freedoms listed in our Bill of Rights, and this bill further protects that right for South Dakotans."

The new law covers "public expression," a term the statute defines broadly to include communications made in legislative, executive, judicial, administrative, or other governmental proceedings, communications on issues under review in those proceedings, and the exercise of speech, press, assembly, petition, and association rights on matters of public concern under both the U.S. and South Dakota Constitutions. A defendant targeted by a qualifying suit may file a special motion for expedited dismissal; filing it automatically stays the case, including discovery, while the court decides. If the defendant prevails, the court must award costs, reasonable attorney's fees, and litigation expenses, and if the trial court denies the motion, the defendant can immediately appeal that denial rather than waiting for a final judgment, with the stay remaining in place during the appeal.

What the Law Actually Says

SB 137's mechanics track UPEPA's core design, which several other states have already adopted: it targets the SLAPP problem, a "strategic lawsuit against public participation," where a plaintiff files a claim, often for defamation, primarily to punish or silence a critic rather than to litigate a genuine grievance. The law does not immunize false statements or excuse liability where the elements of a defamation claim are actually met; it screens out cases where the underlying speech was protected activity on a matter of public concern and the plaintiff cannot show a likelihood of prevailing.

That distinction matters because South Dakota's substantive defamation law is unchanged by SB 137. A plaintiff can still sue over a false, unprivileged statement of fact, and a defendant can still raise the state's standard defenses to defamation, including truth, opinion, and privilege. What SB 137 adds is a procedural fast lane: instead of litigating those defenses through months of discovery and motion practice, a defendant can raise them in a special motion shortly after being served, get a stay while the motion is pending, and recover fees if the motion succeeds. South Dakota also has no general criminal defamation statute, so defamation remains a civil matter only in the state, and SB 137 does not change that.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team. SB 137's practical effect is timing and cost, not a change to who can win a defamation case on the merits. Before July 1, 2026, a South Dakota defendant sued over a public complaint, a critical post, or testimony to a government body had to survive standard motion practice and discovery before a court would seriously test whether the suit had merit, a process that itself can function as the punishment in a SLAPP, regardless of the eventual outcome. With a special motion, an automatic stay, and mandatory fee-shifting now available, a defendant facing a meritless suit over protected speech can, in principle, get an early off-ramp and make a losing plaintiff pay for the exercise. The interlocutory appeal right matters for the same reason: it lets a defendant challenge an erroneous denial immediately rather than sit through discovery and trial while an appeal waits.

South Dakota's near-unanimous vote, 33-0 in the Senate and 65-2 in the House, fits UPEPA's track record elsewhere as a negotiated, model-law compromise rather than a partisan fight.

How This Affects You

If you are sued in South Dakota over a statement, review, complaint, or petition connected to a matter of public concern, anti-SLAPP procedures like SB 137's special motion generally must be raised on the statute's own deadlines, separate from ordinary civil motion deadlines. Whether the law applies to a dispute predating July 1, 2026 may turn on when the lawsuit itself was filed, a threshold question worth confirming against the court record. Anyone weighing whether to file or defend a South Dakota lawsuit touching public speech should treat SB 137 as a factor alongside the state's existing two-year statute of limitations for libel and slander.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. It covers South Dakota and reflects sources verified on July 8, 2026. Laws change and this story is developing; consult a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction about your specific situation.

Related articles

• South Dakota defamation laws
• Defamation laws by state
• Defenses to defamation
• Elements of a defamation claim
• Is defamation a crime?

Last updated: 2026-07-08. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-07-08.