Construction Interpretation Uniform Public Expression Protection Act

UPEPA11 Construction ConstructionPublicExpressionProtectionAntiSLAPP


This [act] must be broadly construed and applied to protect the exercise of the right of freedom of speech and of the press, the right to assemble and petition, and the right of association, guaranteed by the United States Constitution or [cite to the state's constitution].

§ 11 comment ¶ 1.

Similar expressions of intent by states that their anti-SLAPP statutes be broadly construed have been pivotal to courts' interpretations of those statutes. See, e.g., ExxonMobil Pipeline Co. v. Coleman, 512 S.W.3d 895, 898 (Tex. 2017) (recognizing that the Texas Legislature "has instructed that the [statute] 'shall be construed liberally to effectuate its purpose and intent fully'"); Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity, 969 P.2d 564, 573 (Cal. 1999) ("The Legislature's 1997 amendment of [California's anti-SLAPP statute] to mandate that it be broadly construed apparently was prompted by judicial decisions ... that had narrowly construed it....

§ 11 comment ¶ 2.

That the Legislature added its broad construction proviso plainly indicates these decisions were mistaken in their narrow view of the relevant legislative intent.").