2024 IL 130137
Ill.2024Background
- Mauro Glorioso, a former chair and executive director of the Illinois Property Tax Appeal Board (PTAB), sued Sun-Times Media over articles alleging he politically pressured staff for Donald Trump's tax relief.
- The Sun-Times published a series of articles referencing an anonymous complaint and a state investigation into Glorioso’s role in the Trump Tower property tax appeal.
- Glorioso claimed the articles falsely exaggerated his involvement, authority, and political motivations, harming his reputation and employment.
- Sun-Times argued their articles were based on truthful facts, privileged as fair reports of official proceedings, and protected by the Illinois Citizen Participation Act (“Anti-SLAPP” statute).
- The circuit and appellate courts denied defendants’ motions to dismiss, finding that whether the articles were substantially true and protected by privilege or the Act were questions of fact—allowing the defamation and false light claims to go forward.
- The Illinois Supreme Court reviewed whether the complaint was a SLAPP under the Citizen Participation Act and whether the press’s investigatory reporting qualified as protected “participation in government.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the lawsuit is a SLAPP under the Citizen Participation Act | Claims are for reputational harm due to false reporting, not an intent to chill speech or governmental participation | Lawsuit targets protected political speech on a matter of public concern; merits are lacking; suit is retaliatory | Not a SLAPP—the articles were news reporting, not acts in furtherance of government participation |
| Whether the articles were substantially true and privileged as fair report | Articles misstated Glorioso’s role and intent, exaggerating his culpability beyond the complaint’s substance | Statements were true or substantially true, reflecting an official investigation | Whether statements were substantially true is a factual question for trial |
| Whether the Anti-SLAPP Act protects all media reports on public matters | Only acts objectively calculated to elicit government action qualify as protected; general press reporting isn’t covered | Press investigations on public official misconduct are protected acts of participation in government | Only media acts genuinely aimed at influencing government action are protected; these articles were ordinary reporting |
| Whether existing precedent (Sandholm) requires proof of retaliatory and meritless suit to dismiss as SLAPP | Plaintiff’s suit seeks damages for personal harm, not to chill speech, so it survives under Sandholm | Sandholm overly limits SLAPP protection; should not require both retaliation and lack of merit | The Sandholm standard stands: defendant bears burden to show suit’s true goal is to chill protected government participation |
Key Cases Cited
- Sandholm v. Kuecker, 2012 IL 111443 (Ill. 2012) (clarifies Illinois SLAPP law; lawsuit must be both meritless and retaliatory, and solely seek to chill government participation)
- Wright Development Group, LLC v. Walsh, 238 Ill. 2d 620 (Ill. 2010) (defines purpose of anti-SLAPP laws in Illinois, balancing the right to sue for injury with rights to participate in government)
- Goral v. Kulys, 2014 IL App (1st) 133236 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014) (media acts can be protected by SLAPP statute only if genuinely aimed at influencing government action)
- Ryan v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 2012 IL App (1st) 120005 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012) (media reports connected to petitioning government for redress can be protected by anti-SLAPP statute)