End Foreign Abuse of United States Courts Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 4, 2026
Bottom line
The bill creates a federal anti-SLAPP mechanism specifically designed to protect U.S. persons from abusive litigation tactics by foreign adversaries and other countries that seek to suppress First Amendment rights.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a new federal procedure within Title 28 of the U.S. Code to dismiss 'Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation' (SLAPPs) when they are brought by foreign governments, their agents, or certain foreign persons. It defines specific criteria for what constitutes a 'covered claim' based on protected speech or political activity, allowing defendants to file a special motion to dismiss with expedited procedures, a stay on discovery, and potential awards of attorneys' fees, costs, and punitive damages.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill is a critical measure to safeguard the First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens and entities from malicious litigation initiated by foreign governments and their proxies. They contend that such SLAPPs are designed to silence criticism, suppress free speech, and impose significant financial burdens, and this bill provides a necessary, standardized federal tool to combat these abusive practices and uphold the integrity of the U.S. judicial system.
Opponents contend
Critics might acknowledge the bill's intent but raise concerns that its broad definitions, particularly regarding 'frivolous litigation' or 'covered foreign person,' could lead to inconsistent application or unintended consequences. They may also argue that the expedited procedures and potential for punitive damages could inadvertently impact legitimate claims by foreign entities or complicate international legal relations.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for a quick but thorough review by an informed reader.
Section 1
Short Title
This section formally names the Act as the 'End Foreign Abuse of United States Courts Act'. This short title provides a concise and easily recognizable name for the legislation, reflecting its primary purpose of addressing abusive lawsuits from foreign entities in U.S. courts.
Supporters argue
Naming the bill with a clear and descriptive short title helps communicate its purpose to the public and facilitates legislative reference.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against standard short title provisions.
Tradeoffs
None.
Section 2(a), inserting Chapter 182 into Title 28
Establishment of Federal Anti-SLAPP Procedure for Foreign Actors
This provision amends Title 28 of the United States Code by inserting a new Chapter 182, titled 'Procedure to Dismiss Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation Brought by Certain Foreign Actors'. This new chapter creates a comprehensive federal framework for addressing SLAPPs initiated by specific foreign entities, outlining definitions, procedures for dismissal, exceptions, and remedies. It aims to provide a uniform federal standard for handling such cases.
Section 4201
Key Definitions for Foreign Anti-SLAPP
This section defines critical terms that determine the scope and applicability of the new anti-SLAPP chapter. Key definitions include 'covered claim' (a claim by a foreign government/agent/person based on political opinion or protected speech), 'covered country' (foreign adversaries or countries with a pattern of frivolous litigation), and 'covered foreign person' (non-resident citizens of covered countries or entities substantially owned/controlled by them). 'Covered protected speech or political activity' is broadly defined to include communications in governmental proceedings, public issues, and First Amendment rights.
Section 4202
Procedure for Special Motion to Dismiss Foreign SLAPPs
This section establishes the core procedure for dismissing covered claims. A court must grant a special motion to dismiss if the moving party demonstrates the claim is 'covered,' no exception applies, and the responding party fails to present a prima facie case or the moving party establishes no genuine issue of material fact. The process includes a 5-day notice, a 60-day filing deadline, an automatic stay of all related proceedings (including discovery) upon filing, and an expedited 90-day ruling requirement from the court.
Section 4203
Exemptions from Foreign Anti-SLAPP Provisions
This section specifies three categories of claims that are exempt from the new anti-SLAPP procedures. These include claims against persons primarily engaged in selling commercial goods or services if the communication arises from that business, claims brought by U.S. Government officials or agents acting in an official capacity, and claims seeking recovery for bodily injury, wrongful death, or survival damages. These exceptions aim to prevent the anti-SLAPP law from being applied to legitimate commercial disputes, government functions, or personal injury cases.
Section 4204
Immediate Interlocutory Appeal for Denied Anti-SLAPP Motions
This section grants a party the right to an immediate interlocutory appeal if a court denies their special motion to dismiss under this chapter. This means that a defendant does not have to wait until the entire case is concluded to appeal the denial of their anti-SLAPP motion, allowing for a quicker review of the motion's merits by a higher court.
Section 4205
Remedies for Prevailing Parties in Foreign Anti-SLAPP Motions
This section outlines the financial remedies available to a party who successfully dismisses a claim using the special motion. It establishes a rebuttable presumption that the prevailing moving party is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Furthermore, if the court determines the claim was brought to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase litigation costs, it may impose punitive damages, limited to deterring similar future conduct. Crucially, foreign states are explicitly stated not to be immune from these fees, costs, or punitive damages.
Section 4207
Federal Court Removal and Remand for Foreign SLAPPs
This section allows a defendant who files a 'colorable' special motion to dismiss to remove their case from state court to a federal district court, regardless of the usual requirements for diversity of citizenship or whether the defense appears in the initial complaint. If the federal court subsequently denies the special motion to dismiss in its entirety, the case is then remanded back to the state court where it originated.
The definition of 'covered country' includes not only designated foreign adversaries but also any country whose government or citizens have been determined by the Secretary of State to have engaged in a 'pattern of frivolous litigation' against U.S. persons intended to deter First Amendment rights.
Section 4201(3)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining terms, but its significance lies in granting broad discretionary power to the Secretary of State to expand the bill's reach based on a qualitative assessment.
Case for: Proponents argue this flexibility allows the U.S. to adapt to evolving threats and target countries that engage in abusive litigation tactics even if they are not formal 'foreign adversaries,' ensuring comprehensive protection.
Case against: Critics might argue that this grants significant, potentially politically influenced, discretion to the executive branch without clear, objective criteria for what constitutes a 'pattern of frivolous litigation,' potentially leading to inconsistent application or diplomatic complications.
Estimated impact: This provision significantly broadens the potential scope of foreign governments and entities subject to the anti-SLAPP provisions, extending beyond current foreign adversary lists.
The definition of 'covered foreign person' includes a corporation, partnership, or similar entity that is 'substantially owned by or subject to the control of' one or more non-resident citizens of a covered country.
Section 4201(4)(B)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative technique for defining corporate relationships, but the 'substantially owned by or subject to the control of' language can be complex to interpret and prove in practice.
Case for: Proponents argue this language is necessary to prevent foreign governments or individuals from circumventing the law by using corporate structures to file SLAPPs, ensuring the bill's intent is not easily evaded.
Case against: Critics might contend that proving 'substantial ownership or control' can be highly complex and burdensome for defendants, potentially leading to prolonged litigation over jurisdictional issues rather than the merits of the anti-SLAPP motion itself.
Estimated impact: This provision extends the bill's reach to corporate entities that may act as proxies for foreign governments or individuals, significantly broadening the types of plaintiffs subject to the anti-SLAPP motion.
A foreign state shall not be immune from fees, costs, or punitive damages imposed under this chapter.
Section 4205(c)
Why it matters:While concise, this is a direct and powerful statement regarding sovereign immunity, which is a complex area of law. Its placement might be seen as a direct legislative instruction to courts.
Case for: Proponents argue this explicit waiver is essential to ensure that foreign governments cannot evade financial penalties for abusive litigation by claiming sovereign immunity, thereby strengthening the deterrent effect of the bill.
Case against: Critics might contend that such an explicit waiver could be seen as an aggressive assertion of U.S. jurisdiction over sovereign entities, potentially leading to diplomatic protests or retaliatory measures from foreign governments.
Estimated impact: This provision significantly enhances the enforceability of financial penalties against foreign governments, potentially increasing the financial risk for foreign states engaging in covered claims.