Where This Could Be Filed — And Why Venue Matters
District of Columbia: D.C. has an Anti-SLAPP statute (D.C. Code § 16-5501 et seq.) that allows an early special motion to dismiss speech claims tied to public issues. But the D.C. Circuit’s Abbas v. Foreign Policy Group decision holds that the D.C. Anti-SLAPP mechanism does not apply in federal diversity cases, because Federal Rules 12 and 56 “answer the same question.” Translation: if the case lands in D.C. Superior Court, Anti-SLAPP is in play; if it’s removed or filed in federal court, the Anti-SLAPP tool may be off the table — a strategic fork in the road for both sides. D.C. Law Library
Delaware: Delaware’s Anti-SLAPP law is narrow, largely limited to petitions involving public applicants/permittees (e.g., land-use contexts). A standard defamation claim between private parties over public-interest commentary typically won’t trigger it. If suit is filed there, Biden likely can’t use Anti-SLAPP as an early shield. Reporters Committee
Bottom line: Expect venue maneuvering. The first lady’s team could prefer a forum where Anti-SLAPP’s procedural hurdles don’t apply (e.g., federal court in D.C. or a state with weak Anti-SLAPP protections), whereas Biden would want the opposite.
