Illinois Supreme Court grants leave to appeal from lower court's decision interpreting anti-SLAPP statute 

On January 26, 2011, Illinois Supreme Court granted leave to appeal the appellate court's decision finding numerous defendants, including several local residents and a local radio station, were immune from a defamation suit brought by a high school coach and athletic director.  

As reported on HLERK's Web site on November 10, 2010, in Sandholm v. Kuecker, 2010 WL 4102998 (2d Dist. 2010), several local residents campaigned to remove Steve Sandholm, a  former high school coach and athletic director for Dixon Public School District No. 170, because they disagreed with his coaching style.  

Several local residents formed a group titled, "Save Dixon Sports Committee." One of its members authored and published an article on the committee's Web site, accusing the plaintiff of being excessively abusive, humiliating and bullying players. The committee then sent a petition to the school board to remove the plaintiff. The petition also was posted on the committee's Web site. Statements made by some of the committee members also were published in several local news outlets, including a local radio station.  

The school district removed the plaintiff as the basketball coach on April 23, 2008, although he continued to work as the school's athletic director. The board removed him as the athletic director the following year. The board was not named as a defendant in the suit. 

The trial court dismissed the defamation actions against the defendants, finding that their actions were protected under the Illinois Citizen Participation Act, Illinois's anti-SLAPP statute. The court also awarded defendants' attorneys' fees for portions of the case that dealt with application of the Act.  

Anti-SLAPP statutes protect persons against strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP's), or lawsuits that are intended to censor or silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense.  

The appellate court affirmed, finding the defendants' actions were protected under the Act because they constituted a genuine effort to procure government action. Specifically, the defendants acted in furtherance of their desire that the school board remove the plaintiff as a coach and athletic director.