Finally, a Bipartisan Bill to Keep Foreign Authoritarians from Using Our Courts as Personal Lawfare Tools
What’s Happening at a Glance
- Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen and Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy introduced the Foreign Anti-SLAPP Act in March 2026
- The bill would create a mechanism to curb foreign authoritarian governments and their proxies from using U.S. courts to harass or silence critics
- It originated from a 2023-24 Stanford Law School Law and Policy Lab, developed with Shaheen’s staff
- The legislation targets meritless lawsuits filed by foreign state-owned entities to burden speakers with legal costs, stress, and delay
Summary
Stanford Law students, guided by Professor Diego Zambrano, helped draft the bipartisan Foreign Anti-SLAPP Act introduced by Sens. Shaheen and Cassidy in March 2026. The bill responds to a gap in U.S. law that allows foreign authoritarian regimes and their proxies, such as state-owned companies, to file meritless lawsuits in American courts not to win on the merits, but to punish journalists, dissidents, and critics through legal fees, stress, and delay. The legislation creates an early-dismissal mechanism for claims aimed at suppressing protected expression, drawing on domestic anti-SLAPP laws while adapting to the foreign-sovereign context. Recent graduates Will Moss, Leo Rassieur, and Remeny White worked to narrowly tailor the statute to block transnational political repression without chilling legitimate claims. If enacted, the law would protect critics from being dragged through years of litigation simply for speaking out, particularly in cases involving foreign regimes using U.S. courts as venues for political harassment.
Why This Is Happening
The bill stems from growing concern that foreign authoritarian regimes exploit U.S. civil procedure to silence dissent abroad. Professor Diego Zambrano’s 2022 article “Foreign Dictators in U.S. Court” and his congressional testimony highlighted how regimes like China and Turkey use U.S. lawsuits against exiles and dissidents. Domestic SLAPP suits already burden speakers; this extends that risk to transnational contexts. The legislation reflects a bipartisan recognition that U.S. courts shouldn’t serve as tools of foreign political repression. It builds on prior academic and advocacy work identifying the intersection of civil procedure, free speech, and transnational litigation as a pressing democratic vulnerability, aiming to close a loophole that has allowed state-backed legal harassment to operate under the radar of existing protections.
Impact on Americans
- American journalists, dissidents, and critics could more easily dismiss lawsuits designed to silence them, reducing legal burden and emotional stress
- The bill may limit foreign governments’ ability to use U.S. courts as instruments of transnational repression, protecting exiles and their families
- Legitimate claimants benefit from a law narrowly drafted to target only abuse aimed at suppressing protected expression, minimizing chilling effects
- If passed, the law could set a precedent for how U.S. courts balance free speech protections against the risk of being weaponized by foreign actors, potentially influencing future civil procedure reforms
