North Dakota: Anti-SLAPP Laws

The short answer

North Dakota does not have an anti-SLAPP statute. There's no special
motion to strike or dismiss, no automatic stay of discovery, and no
SLAPP-specific right to recover attorney's fees. No legislator has ever
introduced a bill to create one — not even after North Dakota became the
site of a nationally-watched $345 million verdict against Greenpeace
that critics widely described as exactly the kind of lawsuit anti-SLAPP
laws exist to stop. In fact, the North Dakota Supreme Court confirmed
the gap directly, in 2026 litigation that grew out of that same case,
stating plainly that "North Dakota does not recognize a SLAPP or
anti-SLAPP action." A defendant sued over speech in North Dakota has to
rely on ordinary tools: general defamation defenses, an ordinary motion
to dismiss or summary judgment, and the state's general frivolous-claim
cost-shifting statute — none of which offer the fast, early exit a real
anti-SLAPP law provides.

Requirements one by one

Governing law

There is no anti-SLAPP statute in force in North Dakota, and none has
ever existed. Unlike many no-statute states in this survey, North Dakota
does not even have a documented history of failed legislative attempts —
no bill creating a special motion to strike or dismiss for
speech-targeting lawsuits has been introduced in any recent session,
including 2025 (the state's most recent regular session; North Dakota's
legislature meets only in odd years). No such bill followed the March
2025 jury verdict against Greenpeace in a North Dakota state court,
despite the extensive national and international attention that case
drew to the state's lack of anti-SLAPP protection. 2026 has no regular
legislative session; the next one convenes in 2027.

What speech or conduct would be protected

Not applicable as a statutory matter — there is no statute defining
protected activity, and no case-law substitute either. The North Dakota
Supreme Court addressed this directly in 2026, in a dispute arising from
the Greenpeace litigation itself: it recounted, without disagreement,
the trial court's conclusion that "North Dakota does not recognize a
SLAPP or anti-SLAPP action" at all — not even a narrower, case-law-based
version like some other no-statute states have developed. A defendant
sued over speech in North Dakota falls back entirely on ordinary
defamation and First Amendment doctrine: for example, a plaintiff who is
a public official or limited-purpose public figure must prove the
defendant acted with actual malice, and a fair, true report of an
official proceeding carries a qualified privilege. These are
general-purpose doctrines available in nearly every state, not a
SLAPP-specific protection unique to North Dakota.

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 under the North Dakota Rules of Civil
Procedure, on the normal civil-procedure timeline, with no automatic
stay of discovery while the motion is pending.

Burden of proof

Because there is no anti-SLAPP statute, there is no special early
burden-shifting test. Ordinary pleading-sufficiency and
summary-judgment standards apply to any motion. Where ordinary
defamation doctrine puts the burden on the plaintiff — for example, to
prove actual malice against a public figure — that burden is litigated
as part of winning or losing the underlying case, not resolved on an
early, expedited motion the way a true anti-SLAPP statute would require.

Attorney's fees

There is no SLAPP-specific fee-shifting rule. North Dakota's general
frivolous-claim statute lets a prevailing party recover costs and
attorney's fees if the court finds the other side's claim was frivolous —
meaning there was such a complete absence of actual facts or law that no
reasonable person could have expected to win — but only if the
prevailing party raised that argument in a responsive pleading, and only
as a finding made over the course of the case, not an automatic award
tied to an early motion.

Right to appeal

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

Exemptions

Not applicable — there is no statute to carve exemptions from.

What trips people up

No anti-SLAPP bill has ever been introduced, even after national
attention. Some no-statute states in this survey have a track record
of repeated failed attempts to pass a law. North Dakota doesn't even
have that — the legislature has never taken up the issue, despite the
Greenpeace verdict putting the state's lack of protection under an
unusual amount of scrutiny.

North Dakota courts don't recognize even a narrower, judge-made
version of anti-SLAPP protection. Unlike some other no-statute states
where courts have carved out at least a partial defense from
constitutional petitioning rights, North Dakota's highest court has said
directly that no SLAPP or anti-SLAPP cause of action exists here at all.

There's no discovery stay while you fight the underlying claim.
Without a special motion, discovery proceeds on the normal timeline
regardless of whether you believe the lawsuit targets protected speech.

The general frivolous-claim statute isn't a substitute. It requires
a full finding of frivolousness, made after the fact, and depends on the
prevailing party having raised the argument in a responsive pleading —
it isn't an early motion designed to end a meritless speech-based case
quickly.

Common questions

Does North Dakota have any fast way to get a meritless lawsuit over my
speech thrown out? No. There's no SLAPP-specific procedure. You'd use
an ordinary motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment, which
takes the normal amount of time and comes with no automatic discovery
stay or guaranteed fee award.

I heard about the huge Greenpeace verdict in North Dakota — did that
lead to a new law protecting speech? No. Despite substantial national
criticism describing that case as exactly the kind of lawsuit anti-SLAPP
laws are meant to prevent, no legislator has introduced a bill to create
one, and the North Dakota Supreme Court has confirmed directly that the
state still recognizes no such cause of action.

Is North Dakota likely to pass an anti-SLAPP law soon? There's no
way to know for certain, but there's no current bill and no history of
one ever being introduced, even after the state's anti-SLAPP gap became
a matter of national attention.

Statutes and sources

• Energy Transfer LP v. Gion, 2026 ND 93 — "The district court
  concluded otherwise, reasoning that the issues were different because
  GPI's Dutch action raises SLAPP claims -- 'a cause of action recognized
  in the Netherlands under anti-SLAPP suit law' -- and 'North Dakota does
  not recognize a SLAPP or anti-SLAPP action.'... Anti-SLAPP statutes in
  American jurisdictions, including the Uniform Law Commission's recent
  uniform act, operate defensively: they authorize an expedited motion
  and a stay of discovery to permit early dismissal of meritless
  speech-chilling litigation before the merits reach trial." Source:
  https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/210821 (accessed
  2026-07-05).
• N.D.C.C. § 28-26-01(2) — "In civil actions the court shall, upon a
  finding that a claim for relief was frivolous, award reasonable actual
  and statutory costs, including reasonable attorney's fees to the
  prevailing party. Such costs must be awarded regardless of the good
  faith of the attorney or party making the claim for relief if there is
  such a complete absence of actual facts or law that a reasonable
  person could not have thought a court would render judgment in that
  person's favor, providing the prevailing party has in responsive
  pleading alleged the frivolous nature of the claim." Source:
  https://ndlegis.gov/cencode/T28C26.pdf (accessed 2026-07-05).