Anti-SLAPP Law Passes

A Huge Win for Free Speech in South Dakota: My Personal Experience with Law Enforcement Being Weaponized — and Why SB 137 Changes Everything

Last summer I got a call from the sheriff’s office. A road district board member, Dale Ruzicka, whom I’ve written about on this site had filed a complaint about my posts. The deputy on the phone sounded like he was just doing his job — polite, professional, but clearly unaware that the person complaining was an elected public official, not a regular citizen.

Public officials don’t get the same legal protections private citizens do when it comes to criticism. They have to prove “actual malice” — that I knowingly lied or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. Everything I post here is either backed by public records, meeting minutes, or clearly labeled as opinion and satire. Still, the call left a bad taste in my mouth. It felt like classic overreach: a politician using law enforcement to intimidate a citizen for simply holding them accountable.

This wasn’t the first time. For a couple of years now, I’ve received repeated threats of defamation lawsuits from local officials I cover. Every time, the message is the same: “Stop writing about us or we’ll sue.” Even when the claims are meritless, the threat alone can work — because fighting a lawsuit is expensive, time-consuming, and terrifying for anyone who isn’t a millionaire with a full-time legal team.

That’s exactly what Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) are designed to do: silence critics through the threat of litigation, not the merits of the case.

That’s why the passage of Senate Bill 137 is such a massive victory.

On March 16, 2026, Governor Larry Rhoden signed SB 137 into law. South Dakota is now the 40th state with strong anti-SLAPP protections, adopting the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA). The bill passed the Senate unanimously (33-0) and the House 65-2 — a rare show of bipartisan support for free speech.

Here’s what the new law actually does (effective July 1, 2026):

• It gives defendants (like me, or anyone writing about public issues) the right to file a special motion to dismiss SLAPP suits early in the process.
• The burden shifts to the plaintiff to prove their case has merit — right away.
• If the motion succeeds, the defendant can recover attorney fees and costs — turning the financial weapon back on the people who abuse the courts.
• It protects speech on matters of public concern: government accountability, elections, public officials’ actions, local board meetings, and more.

For years, South Dakota was one of the few states without these protections. That gap let politicians and powerful local figures weaponize the legal system against citizens, journalists, and bloggers. SB 137 finally closes that gap.

To the road district board member who called the sheriff on me: this law is your warning. The days of filing complaints or dangling lawsuit threats to shut down legitimate criticism are numbered. From July 1 onward, those tactics will cost you — not me.

To everyone else in small-town South Dakota who’s been hesitant to speak up about potholes, budgets, zoning deals, or questionable official conduct: this is your green light. Document everything. Publish the facts. Hold them accountable. The First Amendment was always on your side — now the law gives you real teeth to back it up.

This fight isn’t over the moment the law takes effect, of course. We’ll still need good lawyers (something I’ve found to be unfortunately lacking in South Dakota) and vigilant citizens. But for the first time, South Dakota has a real shield against the chilling effect of frivolous legal bullying.

If you’ve ever received a threatening letter, a sheriff’s call, or a “cease and desist” for speaking out about local government, drop a comment below. You’re not alone — and starting this summer, you’ll have stronger protections than ever.

Stay informed. Keep questioning. And thank you for reading and supporting independent local coverage.