Responding to Supreme Court, lawmakers look to expand lawsuit protections for press

SPRINGFIELD — Illinois lawmakers are seeking to extend lawsuit protections to regular news reports following a recent ruling by the state’s Supreme Court that allowed a defamation suit against the Chicago Sun-Times to progress.

The measure, Senate Bill 1181, would explicitly name the press in an existing state law that aims to protect against “strategic lawsuits against public participation,” otherwise known as SLAPP lawsuits.

The case that inspired the legislation was brought against the Sun-Times after the paper published multiple articles about investigations into the former executive director of the Illinois Property Tax Appeal Board.

The Sun-Times had obtained a copy of a complaint made to the Office of the Executive Inspector General against Mauro Glorioso, a former chair of PTAB who later became its executive director.

The complaint, which has since been ruled unfounded by the OEIG, claimed that Glorioso, a Republican, told staff “he wanted a large reduction in the assessment of Trump Tower because the owner of the property was the president of the United States.”

Staff at PTAB had not initially recommended reducing property taxes but ultimately altered their decision to recommend a $1 million reduction. An administrative judge later said that decision was made to rectify an overassessment that occurred in 2011, and the recommendation to reduce the assessment was upheld by an appellate court in 2023.

Glorioso sued the newspaper in 2021, claiming he was defamed and that the paper’s coverage mischaracterized the OEIG investigation, misstated Glorioso’s motivation as political and overstated his involvement in the decision.

Lawyers from the Chicago Sun-Times sought dismissal under the 2007 Citizen Participation Act that defines a SLAPP suit as frivolous litigation that “chills and diminishes citizen participation in government.”

More than three years after Glorioso initially filed his suit, the court ruled in November that the Sun-Times’ articles weren’t investigations, which would have been protected under the law. Instead, the court wrote, the articles were news reports about something a government agency was doing and lacked any intent to elicit action or a solution from the government — which was needed for SLAPP protections to be applicable.

The court’s opinion also said there wasn’t any mention of the press or news media in the act, so they allowed the lawsuit to continue at the lower court level.

“This is not to minimize or understate the importance of the press and other news media in our democracy,” Justice David K. Overstreet wrote in the opinion. “Our jurisprudence is replete with privileges and other protections designed to protect these concerns, many of which remain at issue in this lawsuit. We are simply holding that the (Citizen Participation) Act specifically protects government participation and does not encompass all media reports on matters of public concern.”

SB 1181 directly addresses that sentiment. The bill states, “The press opining, reporting, or investigating matters of public concern is participating and communicating with the government,” meaning organizations doing so would be protected under the law if the bill passes.

The measure also provides that all legal proceedings in a case, including discovery, would be stayed while a party’s Citizen Participation Act lawsuit motion progresses in court.

Rep. Dan Ugaste, R-Geneva, voiced concerns on the House floor about that provision.

“I believe we’re going to have a unintended impact of actually harming individuals who are just trying to protect themselves from what could be very irresponsible journalism, all under the guise of protecting the constitutional right of the freedom of the press,” Ugaste said before he urged a “no” vote.

Rep. Dan Didech, D-Buffalo Grove, explained the reasoning behind the provision.

“We are amending the statute so there still has to be a nexus to that exercise of constitutional rights, but the conduct does not have to be solely related to that exercise,” Didech said.

The bill cleared the Senate 55-1 in April and passed the House with a minor amendment on a vote of 75-38. Because of the amendment, it heads back to the Senate before it can be sent to the governor.