A diverse collection of groups is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to take up an appeal by a Florida environmentalist who was saddled with a $4.4 million verdict over public comments she made about a Martin County development plan.
The libertarian Cato Institute and the Florida Wildlife Federation are among the groups supporting Maggie Hurchalla, who emailed her county commission in 2013 that a proposed mining project may violate environmental standards. The county eventually launched an investigation and ended the project. In turn, the owners of the Lake Point rock quarries sued parties involved in the debate over the project, leading to the multimillion-dollar verdict against Hurchalla that was upheld by a federal appeals court.
Hurchalla’s supporters see her plight as an example of a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), a legal tool that has been used to discourage free speech about public policy and public communications with government officials.
“You don’t want to discourage citizens exercising their First Amendment rights out of a fear that the government or someone else is going to retaliate by suing them for speaking out just for what they’re doing,” Ilya Shapiro, director of the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, told the Florida Record.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld the verdict against Hurchalla, concluding that she was guilty of “tortious interference” in a contract that the Lake Point company had with the county. Her emailed statements were also found to be false and made with “actual malice.”
Those who filed amicus briefs on behalf of Hurchalla, however, emphasize that she was not a public official doing something nefarious but a community member speaking her mind about a public issue.
“If she were doing something behind the scenes that wasn’t public to subvert a government contract, then that might be a different story,” Shapiro said.
In addition, the claim against Hurchalla did not have anything to do with defamation, according to the amicus brief filed by the Cato Institute and other groups.
“Mrs. Hurchalla is being held liable for the actions taken by governmental officials, allegedly due to her petitioning activity – not for the direct effects of defamatory statements made in the course of petitioning,” the brief filed on Oct. 10 states.
Those supporting Hurchalla’s position in the litigation also expressed concern that, left in place, the verdict would have a negative effect on civil discourse.
“It is not appropriate to put the courts in the position of censoring people’s communications with their government by creating a feat that, should a powerful private actor take issue with such speech, they may be disproportionately financially liable,” the brief says.
Shapiro expects the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether or not to take up the appeal sometime this fall – before Christmas at the latest.