A Minnesota appellate court has upheld a lower court's dismissal of defamation claims made by Ashley Anderson against her brother Adam Anderson and two other family members. The Court of Appeals of Minnesota ruled on April 27, 2026, that Ashley's claims were barred under the Minnesota Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA). This ruling is significant as it clarifies the protections offered under UPEPA, particularly in cases involving statements made to government agencies.
The case, Ashley Anderson v. Adam Aaron Anderson, docket number A25-1075, arose from a family dispute involving allegations of professional misconduct against Ashley, a licensed clinical social worker. The court's decision impacts not only the parties involved but also sets a precedent for how similar cases may be handled under UPEPA in the future.
Background
Ashley Anderson has been employed by the Central Minnesota Health Center since 2013. Her brother, Adam Anderson, along with their siblings Arica and Austin, became embroiled in a dispute regarding Austin's care and guardianship, especially due to his mental health and substance abuse issues. Tensions escalated when Austin was arrested in September 2024, leading Ashley to contact the jail about his health complications.
Following this incident, Adam submitted a report to the Minnesota Board of Social Work, alleging that Ashley had misused her position to access confidential information about Austin. The report claimed that Ashley had engaged in unethical behavior, including impersonating their mother to obtain health records. This report triggered an investigation by the board into Ashley's conduct, prompting her to file defamation claims against Adam and her other siblings.
The Ruling
The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision to grant Adam and the other respondents' special motion for expedited relief under UPEPA. The court found that Adam's statements in the report constituted a communication in a governmental proceeding, thus qualifying for protection under UPEPA. Judge Harris stated, "The district court properly granted respondents’ special motion for expedited relief under UPEPA because... respondents’ alleged defamatory statements set forth in a report to the Minnesota Board of Social Work constitute a communication in a governmental proceeding."
The court also ruled that Ashley failed to establish any exceptions to UPEPA that would allow her claims to proceed. Additionally, the court found that Ashley did not present a prima facie case for her defamation claims, which require proof of false statements that harm a person's reputation.
Impact
This ruling reinforces the protections provided by UPEPA, which was enacted to prevent strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). It clarifies that communications made in the context of governmental proceedings are shielded from defamation claims, provided they meet certain criteria. This case illustrates the balance between protecting individuals from defamatory statements and allowing for open communication regarding professional conduct to regulatory bodies.
The decision may have broader implications for similar cases in Minnesota, as it sets a precedent that could deter individuals from filing defamation lawsuits based on statements made in governmental contexts. It emphasizes the importance of the UPEPA framework in safeguarding public discourse, particularly in sensitive cases involving professional ethics.
What's Next
Ashley Anderson has the option to appeal the ruling to the Minnesota Supreme Court, but it remains unclear if she will pursue this route. The case underscores ongoing discussions about the boundaries of defamation law and the protections afforded to individuals under UPEPA.