Arizona: Anti-SLAPP Laws
The short answer
Yes. Arizona's anti-SLAPP statute, A.R.S. § 12-751, lets a defendant sued over the lawful exercise of the right to petition, speech, press, association, or assembly file a motion to dismiss or quash within 60 days of service. Arizona's version has an unusual twist: the movant's first job isn't just showing their conduct was protected -- it's proving the entire lawsuit was 'substantially motivated by a desire to deter, retaliate against or prevent' that protected activity. Only once the movant clears that bar does the plaintiff have to respond at all, and only then does discovery stop. If you win, the court may (but doesn't have to) award you fees; if you lose and the court finds your motion frivolous or made just to delay, you owe the other side's fees. A 2022 rewrite broadened the law from covering only the right to petition to covering all of these constitutional rights, and added a right to an immediate appeal -- but only when the trial court actually found that prima facie proof.
| Governing law | A.R.S. § 12-751, 'Strategic actions against public participation; motion to dismiss or quash; definitions'; originally enacted 2006 (Laws 2006, ch. 234) as a narrow right-of-petition-only statute split across companion §§ 12-751/12-752, substantially rewritten and consolidated into the current § 12-751 by a 2022 amendment (Laws 2022, ch. 267, eff. 2022-09-24) that broadened scope to all constitutional rights; the former companion section, § 12-752, no longer carries independent anti-SLAPP text on the official code site |
|---|---|
| What speech/conduct is protected | Broad since the 2022 rewrite: any legal action involving a person's lawful exercise of the right of petition, the right of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to freely associate, or the right to peaceably assemble under the U.S. or Arizona Constitution (§ 12-751(A)); before 2022, coverage was limited to the right of petition alone |
| Special motion to strike/dismiss | 'Motion to dismiss or quash' within 60 days of service, or later at the court's discretion (§ 12-751(D)); a distinctive two-step trigger -- the movant must first establish 'prima facie proof' that the SUIT ITSELF was substantially motivated by a desire to deter, retaliate against, or prevent protected activity before the responding party even has to answer the motion, and before discovery is stayed (§ 12-751(B), (E)) |
| Burden of proof | The movant's threshold showing is unusually demanding: prima facie proof the entire legal action was 'substantially motivated by a desire to deter, retaliate against or prevent' the lawful exercise of a constitutional right -- not merely that the claim touches protected activity. Once shown, a non-state-actor responding party must show the action is justified by existing law or a reasonable argument to extend it; a state-actor responding party faces a higher bar of clearly established law plus proof it did not act to deter or retaliate (§ 12-751(B)(1)-(2)) |
| Attorney's fees | Discretionary for a prevailing movant -- the court 'may' award costs and fees, changed from mandatory in the 2022 rewrite; mandatory against a losing movant only if the court finds the motion frivolous or solely intended to delay (§ 12-751(F)) |
| Appeal rights | An order granting OR denying the motion is appealable, but only if the trial court found the movant established the prima facie proof required by § 12-751(B) -- if the court never reaches that finding, there is no appeal right under this provision (§ 12-751(H), applied through § 12-2101(A)(5)(e)); the court of appeals must expedite such an appeal absent good cause or a contrary court rule |
| Exemptions | No standalone exemptions list like UPEPA states have. Instead, a state actor or an intervenor is barred from FILING the motion at all (§ 12-751(A)); separately, § 12-751(I) clarifies the statute creates no new privileges or immunities, doesn't limit any other remedy the movant has, and doesn't limit a legislative or executive body's own power to enforce its internal procedural rules |
Compare this rule across all 50 states + DC →
The short answer
Arizona has had an anti-SLAPP statute since 2006, but a 2022 rewrite changed
it substantially. A.R.S. § 12-751 now lets a defendant sued over the lawful
exercise of the right to petition, speech, press, association, or assembly
file a motion to dismiss or quash within 60 days of service. Arizona's law
puts an unusual burden on the movant up front: instead of just showing the
underlying conduct was constitutionally protected, the movant must show
prima facie proof that the entire lawsuit was "substantially motivated by a
desire to deter, retaliate against or prevent" that protected activity.
Only once a court makes that finding does the plaintiff have to respond,
does discovery stop, and does a right to immediate appeal exist.
Requirements one by one
Governing law
Arizona enacted its first anti-SLAPP statute in 2006 (Laws 2006, ch. 234),
originally limited to suits over the right of petition and split across
two companion sections. A 2022 amendment (Laws 2022, ch. 267), effective
September 24, 2022, substantially expanded and consolidated the law into
the current A.R.S. § 12-751, extending protection to free speech, free
press, free association, and peaceable assembly, and adding an interlocutory
appeal right. The 2022 amendment did not apply retroactively to actions
filed before its effective date. The former companion provision, § 12-752,
no longer carries independent anti-SLAPP text.
What speech or conduct is protected
Since 2022, the statute covers any legal action involving a person's
lawful exercise of the right of petition, the right of speech, the freedom
of the press, the right to freely associate, or the right to peaceably
assemble under the U.S. or Arizona Constitution. Before the rewrite,
Arizona's law covered only the right of petition -- for example, statements
made as part of an initiative, referendum, or recall effort, or before a
government body.
The motion to dismiss or quash
A defendant (other than a state actor or intervenor) has 60 days after
being served to file a motion to dismiss or quash, though a court can allow
a later filing on proper terms. What makes Arizona's procedure distinctive
is the order of operations: the movant must first establish prima facie
proof that the lawsuit itself was substantially motivated by a desire to
deter, retaliate against, or prevent the lawful exercise of a constitutional
right. The plaintiff isn't even required to respond to the motion until the
court finds that threshold proof has been met and orders a response --
and only then does the court, if possible, hold an expedited hearing.
Burden of proof
The movant's threshold burden is unusually demanding compared to most other
states' anti-SLAPP laws: proving the suit as a whole was substantially
motivated by a desire to deter, retaliate, or prevent protected activity,
not simply that the claim touches on protected conduct. Once that showing
is made, a non-state-actor plaintiff must show the action is justified by
existing law or a reasonable argument to extend it. A state-actor
plaintiff faces a tougher standard: it must show the action is justified by
clearly established law AND that it did not act to deter, prevent, or
retaliate against the movant's constitutional rights.
Attorney's fees
If the movant wins, the court "may" -- not must -- award costs and
reasonable attorney's fees; the 2022 rewrite changed this from a mandatory
award under the prior version of the law. If the court finds the motion
itself was frivolous or filed solely to delay the case, it must award costs
and fees to the prevailing plaintiff instead.
Right to appeal
An order granting or denying the motion is appealable, but only if the
trial court found that the movant established the required prima facie
proof in the first place. If the court never reaches that finding -- for
example, because it denies the motion without ever finding the threshold
proof met -- there's no appeal right under this provision. Once available,
the court of appeals must expedite the appeal unless it finds expedited
review isn't feasible or a court rule says otherwise.
Exemptions
Arizona's statute doesn't have a separate exemptions list the way UPEPA
states do. Instead, only a state actor or an intervenor is barred from
filing the motion in the first place. A separate savings clause confirms
the statute doesn't create new privileges or immunities, doesn't limit any
other remedy available to the movant, and doesn't limit a legislative or
executive body's own authority to enforce its internal procedural rules.
What trips people up
The movant's burden is backwards from most states' anti-SLAPP laws.
Elsewhere, the defendant typically just shows the claim arises from
protected activity, and the burden shifts to the plaintiff. In Arizona, the
defendant must affirmatively prove the plaintiff's motive -- that the whole
suit was aimed at deterring, retaliating against, or preventing protected
activity. Proving motive is a much harder showing than proving the subject
matter of a claim.
Nothing happens -- no response required, no discovery stay -- until the
court makes an affirmative prima facie finding. A movant who files the
motion and assumes discovery automatically freezes, the way it does in
UPEPA states, will be surprised: Arizona's stay and the plaintiff's
response obligation both depend on the court first ruling that the prima
facie proof standard has been met.
A denied motion isn't automatically appealable. Unlike most states with
an anti-SLAPP appeal right, Arizona only allows an appeal -- of either a
grant or a denial -- when the trial court found the prima facie proof
requirement satisfied. A denial where the court never reached that finding
has no appeal right under this statute.
Common questions
Does filing the motion stop discovery right away? No. Discovery is
only stayed once the court finds the movant has established the required
prima facie proof that the lawsuit was motivated by a desire to deter,
retaliate, or prevent protected activity.
If I win, am I guaranteed my attorney's fees back? No. Since the 2022
rewrite, fees for a prevailing movant are discretionary ("may"), not
mandatory. You are only guaranteed fees if you're the plaintiff and the
court finds the motion was frivolous or filed solely to delay the case.
Can I appeal right away if my motion is denied? Only if the trial
court found that you established the required prima facie proof in the
first place. If the court denies the motion without making that finding,
there's no immediate appeal right under this statute.
Statutes and sources
- A.R.S. § 12-751(A) — "In any legal action that involves a person's
lawful exercise of the right of petition, the right of speech, the
freedom of the press, the right to freely associate or the right to
peaceably assemble pursuant to the United States Constitution or Arizona
Constitution, the person other than a state actor or an intervenor may
file a motion to dismiss or quash the action under this section." Source:
https://www.azleg.gov/ars/12/00751.htm (accessed 2026-07-05). - A.R.S. § 12-751(B) — "A person who files a motion pursuant to
subsection A of this section has the burden of establishing prima facie
proof that the legal action was substantially motivated by a desire to
deter, retaliate against or prevent the lawful exercise of a
constitutional right. ... A party is not required to file a response to
a motion filed pursuant to subsection A of this section unless and until
the court finds that the moving party has established the prima facie
proof and orders the party to file a response. ... 1. If the responding
party is a state actor, the responding party shows that the legal action
... is justified by clearly established law and that the responding
party did not act in order to deter, prevent or retaliate ... 2. If the
responding party is not a state actor, the responding party shows that
the legal action ... is justified by existing law or supported by a
reasonable argument for extending or modifying existing law." Source:
https://www.azleg.gov/ars/12/00751.htm (accessed 2026-07-05). - A.R.S. § 12-751(D) — "The motion to dismiss or quash may be filed
within sixty days after the service of the complaint or other document
on which the motion is based or, in the court's discretion, at any later
time on terms that the court deems proper ... If the court finds that
prima facie proof has been established ..., the court, if possible,
shall conduct an expedited hearing on the motion." Source:
https://www.azleg.gov/ars/12/00751.htm (accessed 2026-07-05). - A.R.S. § 12-751(E) — "Unless a court rule specifically provides
otherwise, all discovery proceedings in the action shall be stayed on a
finding of prima facie proof as prescribed in subsection B of this
section. The stay of discovery shall remain in effect until notice of
entry of the order ruling on the motion." Source:
https://www.azleg.gov/ars/12/00751.htm (accessed 2026-07-05). - A.R.S. § 12-751(F) — "If the court grants the motion to dismiss or
quash, the court may award the moving party costs and reasonable
attorney fees, including those incurred for the motion. If the court
finds that a motion to dismiss or quash is frivolous or solely intended
to delay, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney fees to
the prevailing party on the motion." Source:
https://www.azleg.gov/ars/12/00751.htm (accessed 2026-07-05). - A.R.S. § 12-751(H) — "If the court determines that the moving party
has established prima facie proof as prescribed in subsection B of this
section, an order granting or denying a motion filed pursuant to this
section is appealable pursuant to section 12-2101." Source:
https://www.azleg.gov/ars/12/00751.htm (accessed 2026-07-05). - A.R.S. § 12-751(I) — "This article does not: 1. Affect, limit or
preclude the right of the moving party to any remedy otherwise
authorized by law. 2. Create any privileges or immunities or otherwise
affect, limit or preclude any privileges or immunities authorized by
law. 3. Limit or preclude a legislative or executive body or a public
agency from enforcing the rules of procedure and rules of order of the
body or agency." Source: https://www.azleg.gov/ars/12/00751.htm
(accessed 2026-07-05). - A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(5)(e) — "Granting or denying a motion to dismiss
or quash pursuant to section 12-751, unless the court did not find that
the moving party established prima facie proof as prescribed in section
12-751, subsection B. The court of appeals shall expedite any appeal
filed pursuant to this subdivision unless the court for good cause finds
that expedited review is not feasible under the circumstances or a court
rule specifically provides otherwise." Source:
https://www.azleg.gov/ars/12/02101.htm (accessed 2026-07-05).
Source links
Every statute quoted above, linked, with the date we checked it.