Illinois Supreme Court Fixes the Anti-SLAPP Test: What Anderson v. Smith Means for Your Civil Appeal

On June 25, 2026, the Illinois Supreme Court decided Anderson v. Smith, 2026 IL 131714, and a unanimous court rewrote how trial judges must handle a motion to dismiss a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. If someone sued you for speaking out at a public meeting, or you are defending a suit that targets your right to petition the government, this opinion changes the rules you litigate under. It also shows why the legal standard a court applies often decides the appeal before the facts ever do.

The dispute started at a press conference

Nicholas Anderson and Meagan Smith landed on opposite sides of a proposed hog-farming operation. At a press conference before the public hearing, Smith stood behind a speaker holding a sign that read "[F]arms, yes; factory farms, no." Anderson walked up to her. The two told different stories about what happened next, but Smith reported that Anderson pushed her, and the police arrested him for assault. A judge later found him not guilty of battery.

Anderson then sued Smith. Smith moved to dismiss under the Citizen Participation Act, 735 ILCS 110/1 et seq., Illinois's anti-SLAPP statute. She argued that the suit punished her for opposing the measure in public. The trial court denied her motion. The appellate court reversed. The Supreme Court took the case to settle how these motions work.

Two appellate districts, two different tests

Here is the problem the court confronted. The First District had been applying a "meritless and retaliatory" standard drawn from Ryan v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 2012 IL App (1st) 120005: a defendant had to show the plaintiff's claim lacked merit and was filed to retaliate. The Fourth District rejected that test below and asked instead about the lawsuit's "true goal." Same statute, two incompatible standards, depending on which courthouse you walked into.

The Supreme Court sided with the Fourth District on the standard and tied it back to its own precedent in Sandholm v. Kuecker, 2012 IL 111443 and Glorioso v. Sun-Times Media Holdings, LLC, 2024 IL 130137. The question is not whether the claim could win. A claim that might succeed on the merits can still be a SLAPP. What controls is the plaintiff's subjective intent: did the plaintiff sue solely to chill participation in government or to stifle political speech, rather than to recover for a real injury? The defendant carries that burden. If a material factual dispute about intent remains, the trial court must deny the motion.

The procedural win that matters most on appeal

The court did not stop at the standard. It corrected how judges decide the motion. The Fourth District had said a factual dispute on any prong required an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court disagreed. A judge must rule on the pleadings and supporting documents, including any depositions taken before discovery was suspended, and not hold a mini-trial. An evidentiary hearing collides with the Act's suspension of discovery, its 90-day deadline to rule, and the de novo review that governs these motions. The court affirmed the appellate judgment as modified, reversed the circuit court, and remanded.

For anyone with a civil appeal, that ruling is the lesson. Anderson did not turn on who pushed whom. It turned on which legal test applied and what record a judge may consider. Appellate courts decide those questions, and a single change in the standard can flip the result. We read records for exactly that kind of leverage.

Why this reaches your case

If you are defending a suit that grew out of your testimony, your petition, or your protest, Anderson v. Smith gives you a clearer path to dismissal and a faster one, decided on paper under de novo review. If you are appealing an order that applied the old "meritless and retaliatory" test, you now have controlling authority that the test was wrong. Either way, the framing of the legal standard, not just the facts, drives the outcome.

One limit to note: the 2025 amendments to the Citizen Participation Act, which added protections for the press, apply only to actions filed on or after January 1, 2026. Anderson governs cases filed before that date.

A Chicago civil appeals lawyer can tell you whether the standard a trial court used is the right one and whether that gap is worth an appeal. To talk through your case, call Lewarchik Law LLC at 312-517-3877 (Illinois) or 313-312-8484 (Michigan) for a free consultation, or contact us online. Learn more about our civil appeals practice.

David Lewarchik is a Chicago appellate and post-conviction lawyer at Lewarchik Law LLC. This article discusses a published Illinois Supreme Court decision for general information. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Outcomes depend on the facts of each case.