New Hampshire: Anti-SLAPP Laws

The short answer

New Hampshire does not have an anti-SLAPP statute. There's no special
motion to strike, no automatic discovery stay, and no SLAPP-specific
right to attorney's fees. This isn't simple legislative inaction — it's
partly a constitutional roadblock. In 1994, the state Senate asked the
New Hampshire Supreme Court's justices for an advisory opinion on a
proposed bill that would have created a special motion to strike for
SLAPP suits. The justices concluded the procedure would violate the
state constitution's right to a jury trial, writing that "a solution [to
SLAPP suits] cannot strengthen the constitutional rights of one group of
citizens by infringing upon the rights of another group." Lawmakers have
tried again since — a 2024 bill and a 2025 bill both died on the House
floor. A defendant sued over speech relies on an ordinary motion to
dismiss or for summary judgment, plus a general frivolous-litigation
penalty statute that applies to any contract or tort case, not just
speech-based ones.

Requirements one by one

Governing law

There is no anti-SLAPP statute in force or pending in New Hampshire.
Beyond the usual legislative inertia, the state's highest court has
raised a real constitutional obstacle: in a 1994 advisory opinion
requested by the state Senate on proposed SB 661, the justices concluded
that a special-motion-to-strike procedure would deprive litigants of
their state constitutional right to a jury trial by having a judge
resolve disputed facts that would otherwise go to a jury. More recent
attempts have fared no better — a 2024 bill (HB 1475) and a 2025 bill
(HB 391) were both voted "Inexpedient to Legislate," effectively killing
each one. No anti-SLAPP bill is currently pending.

What speech or conduct would be protected

Not applicable — no statutory scope exists, and New Hampshire courts
haven't developed a separate constitutional or common-law
petitioning-immunity doctrine to fill the gap. A defendant sued over
speech here relies on ordinary defamation-law defenses: truth,
non-defamatory opinion, and — where the plaintiff is a public official,
a public figure, or the case involves a matter of public concern — the
requirement that the plaintiff prove the defendant acted with actual
malice.

The special motion that doesn't exist

There is no special motion to strike or dismiss a claim based on
protected speech. A defendant must use an ordinary motion to dismiss or
a motion for summary judgment, on the ordinary civil-procedure timeline,
with no automatic stay of discovery. That said, New Hampshire courts
have shown some practical willingness to resolve speech-protective
defenses early: they've dismissed defamation claims at the motion-to-
dismiss stage where the challenged statements were non-actionable
opinion, and where a public-figure plaintiff failed to plead actual
malice, sometimes allowing only narrow, targeted discovery rather than
the full ordinary process. That's meaningfully different from a
guaranteed, automatic anti-SLAPP procedure — it depends on how a
particular judge handles a particular case.

Burden of proof

Because there is no anti-SLAPP statute, there is no special
burden-shifting test either. Ordinary pleading-sufficiency and
summary-judgment standards apply to any motion. Where the plaintiff is a
public official, public figure, or the case involves a public-concern
matter, the plaintiff has to prove actual malice to win the underlying
claim — but that's a substantive element of the case like any other, not
a threshold showing resolved on a special early motion the way a true
anti-SLAPP statute would require.

Attorney's fees

There's no SLAPP-specific fee-shifting rule, but a general tool applies
in any contract or tort case (which includes most speech-based claims,
like defamation). RSA 507:15 lets a court, on request or its own motion,
order summary judgment against a party whose claim or defense "clearly
appears... frivolous or intended to harass or intimidate," and award the
winning side its costs and fees plus a flat $1,000 penalty. This requires
its own showing and isn't automatic just because you win the underlying
case, and the trial judge must also report the frivolous conduct to the
state's professional-conduct committee.

Right to appeal

There's no special interlocutory appeal right tied to a speech-based
motion. Ordinary New Hampshire rules on final judgments and permissive
interlocutory appeals apply, the same as in any other civil case.

Exemptions

Not applicable — there's no statute to carve exemptions from.

What trips people up

New Hampshire's top court has said a true anti-SLAPP statute may be
unconstitutional here, not just politically stalled. The 1994 advisory
opinion's jury-trial concern is a real, standing legal obstacle that a
future bill would have to design around — it's a different, harder
problem than the ordinary committee gridlock that has killed anti-SLAPP
bills in other no-statute states.

Whether you get an early, speech-protective dismissal depends heavily
on the specific claim and judge. New Hampshire courts have dismissed
defamation claims early where statements were opinion or where actual
malice wasn't adequately pleaded, but there's no guaranteed, automatic
procedure — you're relying on ordinary motion practice, not a statutory
right.

The frivolous-litigation penalty statute is not a SLAPP-specific
tool. RSA 507:15 requires its own separate showing that the claim or
defense was frivolous or intended to harass, and only applies to
contract and tort actions — it isn't triggered automatically by winning
a case over protected speech.

There's no discovery stay while you fight the underlying claim.
Without a special motion, discovery generally proceeds on the normal
timeline, though a court handling an early motion to dismiss may
sometimes limit discovery to what's needed to resolve that motion.

Common questions

Does New Hampshire have any fast way to get a meritless lawsuit over my
speech thrown out? Not through a SLAPP-specific procedure — the state
doesn't have one, and its top court has said a European-style special
motion to strike may be unconstitutional here. You'd use an ordinary
motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment.

I posted a negative but honest opinion online and got sued for
defamation — is there any early protection? Possibly. New Hampshire
courts have dismissed defamation claims at the motion-to-dismiss stage
where the statements were non-actionable opinion, but this depends on
the specific facts and how the court handles the motion, not a
guaranteed statutory right.

Is New Hampshire likely to pass an anti-SLAPP law soon? There's no
way to know for certain, but recent history isn't encouraging — bills in
2024 and 2025 both died on the House floor, and any future bill would
also have to contend with the state supreme court's 1994 view that the
core procedure conflicts with the jury-trial right.

Statutes and sources

• Opinion of the Justices (SLAPP Suit Procedure), 138 N.H. 445, 641
  A.2d 1012, 1015 (1994) — "A solution [to SLAPP suits] cannot
  strengthen the constitutional rights of one group of citizens by
  infringing upon the rights of another group." (quoted verbatim in
  Thurlow v. Nelson, 2021 ME 58, ¶ 10, 263 A.3d 494, and in Duracraft
  Corp. v. Holmes Prods. Corp., 427 Mass. 156, 691 N.E.2d 935 (1998)).
  Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/thurlow-v-nelson-docket-901213476
  (accessed 2026-07-05).
• RSA 507:15 — "If, upon the hearing of any contract or tort action,
  it clearly appears to the court that the action or any defense is
  frivolous or intended to harass or intimidate the prevailing party,
  then the court... may order summary judgment against the party who
  brought such action or raised such defense, and award the amount of
  costs and attorneys' fees incurred by the prevailing party plus $1,000
  to be paid to the prevailing party..." Source:
  https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/LII/507/507-15.htm (accessed 2026-07-05).