Maricopa County judge must decide if high-profile defamation case vs. Kari Lake goes forward

A defamation case against former gubernatorial and current U.S. Senate candidate Kari Lake could serve as a high-profile test of a recently revised state law intending to deter lawsuits that seek to censor or intimidate critics.

Now, a Maricopa County judge must determine whether it will go forward.

The lawsuit, filed in June by Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer, accuses Lake and her affiliates of spreading false information about Richer following the November 2022 election. He alleges that Lake knew, or should have known, the statements were false. Lake and Richer are both Republicans.

But Lake says Richer is seeking to silence her and other election integrity critics. She and her attorneys filed two motions to dismiss the case. One was filed under Arizona's anti-SLAPP law, originally passed in 2006 and revised last year.

SLAPP stands for "strategic lawsuit against public participation," a meritless lawsuit that is brought to silence or intimidate someone who is speaking about a matter of public concern. In Arizona, the law allows for expedited dismissal of a lawsuit if it arises from a desire to deter the exercise of the rights of free speech and petition.

Attorneys for both parties say that motions and replies have been exhausted. Maricopa County Judge Jay Adleman will hold a hearing on the issue on Dec. 19, per court documents. After, he must make a decision.

The judge could also opt to dismiss the case under Lake's regular motion to dismiss, sidestepping the anti-SLAPP law. But if he doesn't, he will need to determine how to interpret the new statute — a decision that could ultimately set precedent.

If he determines that Richer's suit was substantially motivated to deter Lake's free and lawful speech, he could dismiss the case and award Lake attorney fees. If he rules Lake's motion to dismiss is solely intended to cause delay, he could award attorney fees to Richer.

The case could then proceed to the next stage in court. Known as discovery, it's a formal process of exchanging information between attorneys about witnesses and evidence that could be presented at trial.

If the suit goes forward, Richer must prove a high legal standard known as "actual malice" for his suit to prevail. That means he must provide evidence that Lake knew her statements were false or "acted in reckless disregard" of the truth, according to the State Bar of Arizona.

Richer, Lake attorneys argue differing interpretations of law

Lawyers for Richer and Lake are duking the issue out in legal filings.

Lake's team argues her speech is constitutionally protected and that Adleman should dismiss Richer's lawsuit outright.

"Richer's lawsuit is motivated to deter, retaliate against and prevent defendants' speech based upon the substance of Richer's own complaint," Lake's attorneys wrote in a legal filing. "This is not a case where the court needs to search for some hidden motive — it is the expressed purpose of Richer's entire complaint."

But Richer's attorneys say that interpretation of the law would "effectively create a new immunity against even meritorious defamation cases." They say Lake's lawyers have not established proof that Richer's complaint is motivated to deter her speech and that he seeks only to right "the harms that he and his family have suffered as a result of specific defamatory statements."

They seek to bring the case forward.

"Lawsuits like this have always been adjudicated on the merits by the Arizona courts, and Arizona’s revised anti-SLAPP statute does not change that," attorneys for Richer wrote in a legal document.

Must pay sanction: Kari Lake, Mark Finchem lose federal appeal in effort to ban voting machines in Arizona

Sasha Hupka covers county government and regional issues for The Arizona Republic. Do you have a tip? Reach her at sasha.hupka@arizonarepublic.com. Follow her on X, formerly Twitter: @SashaHupka. Follow her on Instagram or Threads: @sashahupkasnaps.

This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Maricopa County judge to decide if defamation case vs. Lake proceeds