Environment
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
StateSouth CarolinaIntroduced
H 3305: Supplemental Appropriations
Weston Newton
H 3305 status: Introduced — Act No. 261 (updated Sep 2, 2026).
Source
LegiScan
Confidence
High
Analysis basis
LegiScan full bill text
01
What this bill does
Official summary alongside an AI-generated read on where it stands and why.
Overall Score
71OUT OF 100
Score:71/100 civic fit
Risk:Moderate Risk
Impact:Moderate Impact 65/100
Constitutionality95%
Bipartisan70%
Public opinion80%
Bill summary
What changes
Establishes a mechanism for 'special motions for expedited relief' in civil actions involving protected speech, assembly, or association.
Who is affected
Civil litigants, legal counsel, and individuals or entities facing lawsuits based on their participation in public discourse or governmental proceedings.
Requirements and enforcement
Parties must file motions within 60 days of service; courts must hear motions within 60 days of filing and rule within 30 days of the hearing.
Costs and funding
Requires mandatory payment of attorney's fees and costs for the prevailing party on anti-SLAPP motions.
When it takes effect
Takes effect June 1, 2025.
Potential benefits
Protects individuals from SLAPP litigation; reduces the chilling effect on free speech; provides a standard mechanism for expedited dismissal of meritless claims.
Risks and tradeoffs
Fee-shifting poses financial risk; discovery stays may impede legitimate litigation; potential for procedural abuse.
What is still unknown
How courts will balance the expedited hearing requirements against caseloads in different jurisdictions.
02
Impact analysis
✦ AI analysisModeled effects across six domains, estimated from bill text and comparable legislation.
Economy
Positive outlook
60%
Benefits
- Reduces legal costs for defendants targeted by frivolous lawsuits.
- Discourages the use of litigation as a tool to silence business critics.
- Creates predictable procedures for handling speech-related disputes.
Risks
- Increases initial litigation strategy complexity for plaintiffs.
- Mandatory attorney fee awards create financial risks for unsuccessful filers.
- Expedited motion practice requires specialized legal resources.
Society
Positive outlook
85%
Benefits
- Bolsters the right to free speech and public assembly.
- Provides a shield against harassment through judicial process.
- Encourages participation in legislative and administrative proceedings.
Risks
- May inadvertently delay civil cases while special motions are resolved.
- Could be used to suppress meritorious claims if misapplied by courts.
- Potential for complex procedural battles in cases involving public interest.
Technology Industry
Positive outlook
60%
Benefits
- Protects platforms and users from retaliatory defamation lawsuits.
- Reduces risks for entities hosting third-party content.
- Standardizes legal challenges regarding digital expression.
Risks
- Could lead to more complex motion practice for technology-related litigation.
- Creates uncertainty for plaintiffs trying to address online defamation.
- Requires internal legal adjustments to accommodate new procedural timelines.
Civic Accountability
Positive outlook
80%
Benefits
- Strengthens protections for those speaking on governmental matters.
- Clarifies the legal status of communication in public proceedings.
- Reduces the chilling effect on public participation in policy discussions.
Risks
- Does not grant citizens new tools to sue government agencies directly.
- Exemption for governmental units preserves existing legal hurdles for public accountability.
- May introduce new procedural barriers for plaintiffs seeking legitimate recourse.
Public Health & Safety
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
03
How trustworthy & consequential it is
Sourcing already shown above, this is what the analysis found worth flagging.
Source
LegiScan
Official bill text or data from LegiScan.
Confidence
High
Information is complete and verified.
Analysis basis
LegiScan full bill text
Source used for this bill's analysis.
Source note
The mandatory fee-shifting provision can impose significant financial risk on parties who lose an anti-SLAPP motion.
Analysis scope
The statute excludes government units from the law's protection, which limits its application in cases against state actors.
04
Where it stands
Official record- IntroducedCurrent
- CommitteeUpcoming
- Chamber votesUpcoming
- Final agreementUpcoming
- GovernorUpcoming
- EnactedUpcoming
05
How it affects your district
✦ Personalized
Set your location
Add your district to see how this bill may affect your community and who to contact.
Your Representatives
Your representatives appear here once you add your location.
06
Take action
Contact your representatives
Let them know how you feel about this bill.
Share your view
Join the discussion and see what others are saying.
Track this bill
Stay updated on progress and changes.