Those of you following the ASU case from the 2024 Palestine encampment know that the defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion to establish political prosecution as grounds to dismiss the charges, which resulted in an oral argument between the state and the defense. The judge has not ruled on it yet.

Anti-SLAPP laws are legal mechanisms designed to protect individuals and organizations from meritless, intimidating lawsuits (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) intended to silence free speech on matters of public interest. They allow defendants to file a "special motion to strike" early in the proceedings, often resulting in swift dismissal and mandatory attorney fees for the filer.

Last summer an activist was assaulted by Peoria PD at an ICE raid and charged with felony assault against a police officer. The defense for this case also filed an anti-SLAPP motion and the oral argument is on Friday. The state is trying to argue that anti-SLAPP is unconstitutional, because it's more difficult to politically prosecute activists/protestors when there is a legal pathway to dismissal. As we've seen with the BLM and Palestine movements, the anti-SLAPP bill is the vital for those of us doing work on the ground, facing down law enforcement. If the judge agrees that anti-SLAPP is unconstitutional, this could have massive implications for its viability in future cases.

If you're interested in following this progression, the oral argument is at 11am on 4/17/2026 at Maricopa County Superior Court (South Court Tower in Room 7C).

Judge: KIEFER, Joseph
https://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/JudicialBiographies/index.asp