* Earlier this week, we talked about how a candidate who felt he’d been libeled on the campaign trail was blocked by a Cook County judge from suing because of the Illinois’ Citizen Participation Act, which is designed to prevent “strategic lawsuits against public participation,” or SLAPPs.

The Illinois Supreme Court narrowed the scope of the law today, ruling that legitimate defamation lawsuits are not covered by the statute. The case is Sandholm v. Kuekcker…

We believe that, had the legislature intended to radically alter the common law by imposing a qualified privilege on defamation within the process of petitioning the government, it would have explicitly stated its intent to do so.

* The unanimous opinion seems pretty reasonable…

It is entirely possible that defendants could spread malicious lies about an individual while in the course of genuinely petitioning the government for a favorable result. For instance, in the case at bar, plaintiff alleges that defendants defamed him by making statements that plaintiff abused children, did not get along with colleagues, and performed poorly at his job. Assuming these statements constitute actionable defamation, it does not follow that defendants were not genuinely attempting to achieve a favorable governmental result by pressuring the school board into firing the plaintiff. If a plaintiff’s complaint genuinely seeks redress for damages from defamation or other intentional torts and, thus, does not constitute a SLAPP, it is irrelevant whether the defendants’ actions were “genuinely aimed at procuring favorable government action, result, or outcome.” Thus, plaintiff’s suit would not be subject to dismissal under the Act. […]

It is apparent that the true goal of plaintiff’s claims is not to interfere with and burden defendants’ free speech and petition rights, but to seek damages for the personal harm to his reputation from defendants’ alleged defamatory and tortious acts. Defendants have not met their burden of showing that plaintiff’s suit was based solely on their petitioning activities.

* The Court also upheld the law’s constitutionality….

All of plaintiff’s arguments alleging that the Act is unconstitutional are based on the assumption that the Act establishes a privilege for defendants who engage in defamatory acts in the process of petitioning the government. Because we hold that the legislature did not intend to establish such a privilege, we do not find the statute unconstitutional under any of the grounds raised by plaintiff.

* From the statute…

Acts in furtherance of the constitutional rights to petition, speech, association, and participation in government are immune from liability, regardless of intent or purpose, except when not genuinely aimed at procuring favorable government action, result, or outcome.

[Hat tip to an eagle-eyed commenter.]