The Law Office of Daniel A. Horwitz, Esq.

July 1, 2019

The “Tennessee Public Participation Act”⁠—Tennessee’s First-Ever Meaningful Anti-SLAPP Law⁠—Takes Effect Today

By Tennessee First Amendment, Speech Defense, and Anti-SLAPP Lawyer Daniel Horwitz:

If you woke up this morning feeling freer to speak your mind, there’s a reason: A little-noticed law with huge free speech benefits takes effect today. As of July 1, 2019, the “Tennessee Public Participation Act”—Tennessee’s first-ever meaningful Anti-SLAPP law—became effective and affords those who are sued for their speech a host of critical legal benefits.

Because litigation is often prohibitively expensive, bad actors can often intimidate critics into silence by threatening or filing baseless speech-based lawsuits asserting claims like defamation (libel or slander), false light invasion of privacy, business disparagement, or other questionable torts. When faced with the prospect of having to spend tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars in legal fees to defend one’s legal right, for instance, to leave an unfavorable review of a business, self-censorship can also become an extremely attractive proposition. The result of such self-censorship is to undermine both individuals’ right to free speech and the public’s right to hear and receive information.

It is important to note that the overwhelming majority of defamation and other speech-based lawsuits are not filed because a person has suffered an actual legal injury. Instead, their purpose is to punish people for lawfully exercising their right to speak freely about a topic that the suing plaintiff wants to censor. Given the cost of litigation, historically, such lawsuits have also been disturbingly effective.

To provide a counterbalance to the financial threat posed by bogus defamation lawsuits, laws aimed at deterring “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation” (Anti-SLAPP laws) afford speakers a number of significant legal protections, all of which are critical to safeguarding free speech and promoting the free exchange of information and ideas. First, Anti-SLAPP laws help deter bad actors from filing baseless lawsuits against people for lawfully exercising their free speech rights in the first place. Second, the best Anti-SLAPP laws provide people who are sued for exercising their First Amendment rights an efficient and expeditious means of getting frivolous speech-based lawsuits dismissed quickly. Third, Anti-SLAPP laws commonly provide a mechanism to punish abusive litigants and attorneys who file baseless defamation claims with significant monetary sanctions. Fourth, Anti-SLAPP laws frequently give people who are sued for exercising their free speech rights the right to recoup whatever attorney’s fees and court costs they incurred for having to defend against a meritless speech-based lawsuit.

Happily, beginning today, Tennessee now boasts an Anti-SLAPP law that affords speakers all of these benefits. Until today, Tennessee only had a limited Anti-SLAPP law that was narrowly restricted to statements made to government agencies.  Fortunately, though, earlier this year, Tennessee enacted the “Tennessee Public Participation Act” to protect Tennesseans’ right to free speech, which became effective July 1, 2019.  Thus, from today onward, the Randy Rayburns and Linda Schipanis and Bari Hardins of the world can now wield a powerful protective weapon against bad actors’ efforts to censor and intimidate them through frivolous speech-based lawsuits.

The Tennessee Public Participation Act has dramatically expanded the scope of speech that receives heightened legal protection in Tennessee. Under the Act, every “communication made in connection with a matter of public concern”—a term that is defined broadly and expressly encompasses statements involving issues of “health or safety” and “community well-being”—”that falls within the protection of the United States Constitution or the Tennessee Constitution” will come within the ambit of the law’s protection. In other words: Most statements made by citizens within the State of Tennessee—including social media posts and blog posts—now receive heightened protection against speech-based lawsuits, including defamation lawsuits, false light invasion of privacy lawsuits, or lawsuits that assert claims such as “defamation by implication or innuendo.”  Defendants who are sued for claims such as “abuse of process” or “malicious prosecution” will frequently enjoy heightened protection under the Tennessee Public Participation Act as well.

Censorship has always been rampant, and it comes in many forms—from firing people who speak out about misconduct in the workplace to libel and slander lawsuits. More than anything, in recent years, the permanence of the internet combined with the reach and speed of social media have made it more attractive than ever to try to censor others through the legal system before harmful information—whether accurate or not—reaches every corner of cyberspace. The good news is that the Tennessee Public Participation Act will now afford significant protection to people who speak out about topics like abuse and other important issues. The text of the law appears below.

Daniel Horwitz is a First Amendment and speech defense lawyer based in Nashville, Tennessee.  If you would like to purchase a consultation from Horwitz, you can do so using the following form:

Consultation Payment Form

Payment for: 30-Minute Consultation

Amount: $200.00

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...

The Tennessee Public Participation Act (Effective July 1, 2019):

20-17-101. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the “Tennessee
Public Participation Act.”

20-17-102. The purpose of this chapter is to encourage and safeguard the
constitutional rights of persons to petition, to speak freely, to associate freely, and to participate in government to the fullest extent permitted by law and, at the same time, protect the rights of persons to file meritorious lawsuits for demonstrable injury. This chapter is consistent with and necessary to implement the rights protected by Article I, §§ 19 and 23, of the Constitution of Tennessee, as well as by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and shall be construed broadly to effectuate its purposes and intent.

20-17-103. As used in this chapter:

(1) “Communication” means the making or submitting of a statement or document in any form or medium, including oral, written, audiovisual, or electronic;

(2) “Exercise of the right of association” means exercise of the constitutional right to join together to take collective action on a matter of public concern that falls within the protection of the United States Constitution or the Tennessee Constitution;

(3) “Exercise of the right of free speech” means a communication made
in connection with a matter of public concern or religious expression that falls within the protection of the United States Constitution or the Tennessee Constitution;

(4) “Exercise of the right to petition” means a communication that falls
within the protection of the United States Constitution or the Tennessee Constitution and:

(A) Is intended to encourage consideration or review of an issue
by a federal, state, or local legislative, executive, judicial, or other
governmental body; or

(B) Is intended to enlist public participation in an effort to effect
consideration of an issue by a federal, state, or local legislative,
executive, judicial, or other governmental body;

(5) “Legal action” means a claim, cause of action, petition, cross-claim, or counterclaim or any request for legal or equitable relief initiated against a private party;

(6) “Matter of public concern” includes an issue related to:

(A) Health or safety;

(B) Environmental, economic, or community well-being;

(C) The government;

(D) A public official or public figure;

(E) A good, product, or service in the marketplace;

(F) A literary, musical, artistic, political, theatrical, or audiovisual
work; or

(G) Any other matter deemed by a court to involve a matter of
public concern; and

(7) “Party” does not include a governmental entity, agency, or employee.

20-17-104.

(a) If a legal action is filed in response to a party’s exercise of the right of free speech, right to petition, or right of association, that party may petition the court to dismiss the legal action.

(b) Such a petition may be filed within sixty (60) calendar days from the date of service of the legal action or, in the court’s discretion, at any later time that the court deems proper.

(c) A response to the petition, including any opposing affidavits, may be served and filed by the opposing party no less than five (5) days before the hearing or, in the court’s discretion, at any earlier time that the court deems proper.

(d) All discovery in the legal action is stayed upon the filing of a petition under this section. The stay of discovery remains in effect until the entry of an order ruling on the petition. The court may allow specified and limited discovery relevant to the petition upon a showing of good cause.

20-17-105.

(a) The petitioning party has the burden of making a prima facie case
that a legal action against the petitioning party is based on, relates to, or is in response to that party’s exercise of the right to free speech, right to petition, or right of association.

(b) If the petitioning party meets this burden, the court shall dismiss the legal action unless the responding party establishes a prima facie case for each essential element of the claim in the legal action.

(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), the court shall dismiss the legal
action if the petitioning party establishes a valid defense to the claims in the legal action.

(d) The court may base its decision on supporting and opposing sworn
affidavits stating admissible evidence upon which the liability or defense is based and on other admissible evidence presented by the parties.

(e) If the court dismisses a legal action pursuant to a petition filed under this chapter, the legal action or the challenged claim is dismissed with prejudice.

(f) If the court determines the responding party established a likelihood of prevailing on a claim:

(1) The fact that the court made that determination and the
substance of the determination may not be admitted into evidence later in
the case; and

(2) The determination does not affect the burden or standard of
proof in the proceeding.

20-17-106. The court’s order dismissing or refusing to dismiss a legal action
pursuant to a petition filed under this chapter is immediately appealable as a matter of right to the court of appeals. The Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure applicable to appeals as a matter of right governs such appeals.

20-17-107.

(a) If the court dismisses a legal action pursuant to a petition filed under this chapter, the court shall award to the petitioning party:

(1) Court costs, reasonable attorney’s fees, discretionary costs,
and other expenses incurred in filing and prevailing upon the petition; and

(2) Any additional relief, including sanctions, that the court
determines necessary to deter repetition of the conduct by the party who brought the legal action or by others similarly situated.

(b) If the court finds that a petition filed under this chapter was frivolous or was filed solely for the purpose of unnecessary delay, and makes specific written findings and conclusions establishing such finding, the court may award to the responding party court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in opposing the petition.

20-17-108.  Nothing in this chapter:

(1) Applies to an enforcement action that is brought in the name of the
state or a political subdivision of this state by the attorney general, a district attorney general, or a county or municipal attorney;
(2) Can result in findings or determinations that are admissible in
evidence at any later stage of the underlying legal action or in any subsequent legal action;
(3) Affects or limits the authority of a court to award sanctions, costs,
attorney’s fees, or any other relief available under any other statute, court rule, or other authority;
(4) Affects, limits, or precludes the right of any party to assert any
defense, remedy, immunity, or privilege otherwise authorized by law;
(5) Affects the substantive law governing any asserted claim;
(6) Creates a private right of action; or
(7) Creates any cause of action for any government entity, agency, or
employee.

20-17-109. This chapter is intended to provide an additional substantive remedy to protect the constitutional rights of parties and to supplement any remedies which are otherwise available to those parties under common law, statutory law, or constitutional law or under the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.

20-17-110. If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any
person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this act that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to that end the provisions of this act are declared to be severable.

May 20, 2019

White County, Tennessee Inmate Sterilization Program Terminated By Historic Order

Federal court orders that controversial sterilization program be rescinded; White County officials to pay Plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees, permanently enjoined from making or enforcing any sentencing determination that is based “in whole or in part upon a defendant’s consent—or refusal to consent—to becoming permanently or temporarily sterilized.”

Following an historic reversal at the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit last month, an inmate sterilization program instituted by two White County, Tennessee officials has finally come to an end.  The landmark order comes nearly two years after a trio of inmates at the White County jail filed suit against White County General Sessions Court Judge Sam Benningfield—the architect of the program—and the White County Sheriff’s Office, alleging that the program violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process clauses.

A consent decree approved by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee earlier today formally terminates the controversial inmate sterilization program, compelling Judge Benningfield to rescind each of his standing orders regarding the program “in their entirety,” effective immediately.  The Court’s order also permanently enjoins both Judge Benningfield and the White County Sheriff’s Office “from making or enforcing any sentencing determination that is based in whole or in part upon a defendant’s consent—or refusal to consent—to becoming permanently or temporarily sterilized” at any point in the future.  Judge Benningfield and the White County Sheriff were further ordered to pay the costs of the lawsuit and the plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees, which the order provides “shall be donated by Plaintiffs’ counsel to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and the Tuskegee History Center.”  Each of the three inmates who sued after refusing to become sterilized also received a 30-day sentencing credit toward a future expungement.

“Inmate sterilization is despicable, it is morally indefensible, and it is illegal,” said Daniel Horwitz, a Nashville-based constitutional lawyer who represented the inmates. “Let this historic order serve as a warning: Whether you are a sitting Judge, a Sheriff who is ‘just following orders,’ or any other government official, if you violate the Constitution, you will be held accountable.”

The Consent Decree and Final Order approved by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee and additional case documents and media coverage regarding the program appear below.

Consent Decree and Final Order

6th Circuit Opinion Reversing District Court

Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief

Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment

6th Circuit Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants

Selected Media Coverage:

-The Tennessean: Federal court order officially ends Tennessee ‘inmate sterilization’ program

-Vice: A Tennessee County Wanted to Sterilize Inmates for Shorter Sentences. That’s Over Now.

-Fox 17: Tennessee inmates win suit against judge who offered sentencing credits for sterilization

-IFL: Federal Court Ends Tennessee’s Controversial Inmate Sterilization Program

-News Channel 5: White County Inmate Sterilization Program terminated by federal ruling

-The Tennessean: Court revives lawsuit against judge who shortened jail time if inmates got ‘sterilized’

Daniel Horwitz is constitutional lawyer based in Nashville, Tennessee.  If you would like to purchase a consultation from Horwitz, you can do so using the following form:

Consultation Payment Form

Payment for: 30-Minute Consultation

Amount: $200.00

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...

April 4, 2019

Horwitz Wins Sixth Circuit Reversal Against Judge Who Instituted Inmate Sterilization Program

In 2017, three inmates in White County, Tennessee sued White County General Sessions Judge Sam Benningfield, alleging a variety of constitutional violations arising from a coervice sterilization-for-sentencing-credits program instituted in the county jail. Among other things, the inmates’ lawsuit sought injunctive relief that would forever terminate White County’s sterilization program.

On April 4, 2019, in a decision reversing the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit officially ruled that sterilization-for-sentencing-credits arrangements like the one instituted by White County Judge Sam Benningfield are unconstitutional. “Requiring inmates to waive a fundamental right to obtain a government benefit impermissibly burdens that right” in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court’s opinion reads.

“This decision sends a clear, important message that should never have been necessary in the first place: Inmate sterilization is illegal and unconstitutional,” Daniel Horwitz, the inmates’ lawyer, said in a statement to The Tennessean on the ruling.

Daniel Horwitz is constitutional lawyer based in Nashville, Tennessee.  If you would like to purchase a consultation from Horwitz, you can do so using the following form:

Consultation Payment Form

Payment for: 30-Minute Consultation

Amount: $200.00

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Posted in: Appeals, Daniel Horwitz
March 2, 2019

Horwitz Named Among “Best of the Best” Lawyers in Nashville by The Nashville Post

Prestigious Legal List Cites Horwitz’s Landmark Election Litigation Victories, Wins For High Profile Clients

Daniel Horwitz, a constitutional lawyer and impact litigator, has been named to The Nashville Post’s 2019 “Legal in Charge” list, reserved for “the best of the best in the Nashville area.” The honor notes that Horwitz “successfully petitioned to move mayoral election last year” and also “[successfully] represented Community Oversight Now, the group advocating for police oversight board,” in addition to having taken on “multiple other high-profile clients in his relatively young legal career.”

Daniel Horwitz is constitutional lawyer based in Nashville, Tennessee.  If you would like to purchase a consultation from Horwitz, you can do so using the following form:

Consultation Payment Form

Payment for: 30-Minute Consultation

Amount: $200.00

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
February 8, 2019

Horwitz Secures First-Ever Reinvestigation of Nashville Murder Conviction By District Attorney’s Conviction Review Unit

After a years-long effort to secure a review of Joseph Webster’s conviction for a 1998 murder, the Davidson County District Attorney’s Office has officially authorized a reinvestigation into the case. It is the first investigation into a potential wrongful murder conviction in Nashville’s history.

“I applaud the District Attorney’s office for deciding to reinvestigate the case against Joseph Webster, which has utterly collapsed,” said Daniel Horwitz, Webster’s attorney. “Mr. Webster looks forward to a thorough investigation of this matter, which he is confident will prove his consistent and unwavering claim of innocence.

Daniel Horwitz is a criminal and civil appellate attorney based in Nashville, Tennessee.  If you would like to purchase a consultation from Horwitz, you can do so using the following form:

Consultation Payment Form

Payment for: 30-Minute Consultation

Amount: $200.00

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
February 4, 2019

Horwitz Wins Speech Defense Claim, Secures Full Dismissal of Lawsuit Filed By Strip Club Over Witness Testimony

In a Memorandum Opinion and Order issued on February 4, 2019, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Deja Vu of Nashville, a local strip club, against business owner Linda Schipani. The lawsuit arose out of testimony that Mrs. Schipani gave to the Metro Traffic and Parking Commission regarding misconduct by the strip club’s valet service operator, which the strip club claimed was part of a conspiracy. Schipani was represented by Daniel Horwitz, a First Amendment and speech defense lawyer based in Nashville.

“Mrs. Schipani is pleased that this garbage lawsuit was properly disposed of at the court’s first opportunity, as we’d promised it would be,” Horwitz said in an emailed statement to the Nashville Business Journal. “In addition to recovering her legal fees, Mrs. Schipani looks forward to celebrating this complete and total victory by continuing to be a good neighbor, a successful businesswoman, and an engaged member of her community. Future bad actors who seek to censor and intimidate their neighbors by filing nonsensical lawsuits would be wise to take heed.”

Daniel Horwitz is a First Amendment and speech defense lawyer based in Nashville, Tennessee.  Selected case documents and media reports about the case are available below.  If you would like to purchase a consultation from Horwitz, you can do so using the following form:

Consultation Payment Form

Payment for: 30-Minute Consultation

Amount: $200.00

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...

Selected Case Documents:

Selected Media Coverage:

January 11, 2019

Horwitz Secures Appellate Victory Upholding Validity of Election that Established Nashville’s Police Oversight Board

Nashville’s first-ever Community Oversight Board—a committee that will review and investigate complaints of police misconduct that voters approved by an overwhelming margin in a November 2018 referendum—will stand, according to a unanimous opinion from the Tennessee Court of Appeals. The Fraternal Order of Police and other opponents of police oversight had sought to invalidate the results of the election, claiming that the referendum should never have been submitted to voters. Advocates of the oversight board were represented by Nashville attorneys Daniel Horwitz and Jamie Hollin.

“The FOP’s attempt to invalidate a free election and strip 134,135 people of their vote has been rejected yet again,” Community Oversight Now attorneys Jamie Hollin and Daniel Horwitz said in a statement to The Tennessean. “We are pleased that Metro’s Community Oversight Board will be permitted to do the important work that voters demanded.”

The Metro Council will begin considering nominations to the Board immediately.

Daniel Horwitz is a campaign finance and election lawyer based in Nashville, Tennessee.  Selected case documents and media reports about the case are available below.  If you would like to purchase a consultation from Horwitz, you can do so using the following form:

Consultation Payment Form

Payment for: 30-Minute Consultation

Amount: $200.00

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...

Selected Case Documents and Media Coverage:


October 31, 2018

Horwitz Secures Early Release of Calvin Bryant, College Student Who Received 17-year Mandatory Minimum Sentence For First-Time, Non-Violent Drug Offense

Calvin Bryant—a beloved college student and high school football star whose sentence garnered national attention for its purposeless cruelty after he received a 17-year mandatory minimum prison sentence for a first-time, non-violent drug offense—was released from prison on October 31, 2018. Mr. Bryant’s release was made possible after his attorney, Daniel Horwitz, brokered a deal with Davidson County District Attorney Glenn Funk that enabled him to be released seven years early.

Due to the severity of Tennessee’s Drug Free School Zone Act—an intensely punitive sentencing enhancement that has nothing to do with protecting children, places drug offenses on par with the most severe, violent crimes, and can be applied to virtually every drug transaction that occurs within a Tennessee city—Mr. Bryant received a prison sentence for a low-level drug transaction that was longer than he would have received if he had committed Rape or Second Degree murder. His case attracted widespread calls for reform after it exposed prosecutors’ arbitrary use of the enhancement and its racially disparate application.

“This would not have been possible without a DA sticking his neck out to right this wrong, and without a legion of supporters,” Horwitz told The Tennessean. “This is—and I’m not exaggerating— the most unfair sentence I have ever seen. There is simply no circumstance in which it makes sense to punish a first-time, nonviolent drug offender more harshly than a rapist or a murderer.”

After his release, Bryant immediately re-enrolled at Tennessee State University to finish his degree and established a non-profit organization aimed at curbing youth violence and steering kids away from gangs and drugs. Selected media coverage of Mr. Bryant’s case appears below.

Calvin Bryant poses with his attorney, Daniel Horwitz, following his early release from prison for a first-time, non-violent drug offense.

Selected Media Coverage:

–The Tennessean: Sentenced to 17 years for low-level drug charge, Nashville man gets freedom thanks to deal with prosecutors

–Patch:  Nashville Case Highlights Drug-Free School Zone Reform Efforts

–Reason: How a Drug-Free School Zone Sent a Tennessee College Student to Prison For 17 Years

–Reason: Calvin Bryant Was Serving a Draconian Mandatory Minimum Sentence. Now He’s Free

–Nashville Scene:  Council Members Petition Judge Over Drug-Free School Zone Case

–The Tennessean:  He got 17 years for selling drugs near school. Now 12 Nashville officials are fighting on his behalf

–ScotBlog: Eighth Amendment Challenge Filed Against Tennessee’s “Drug Free School Zone” Law

–Families Against Mandatory Minimums: Calvin Bryant: 17 Years for a First Offense


October 4, 2018

Horwitz Wins Lawsuit Challenging Tennessee’s “Blackout Ban” for Non-Partisan PACs

In a landmark victory against a decades-old Tennessee election statute, Horwitz client Tennesseans for Sensible Election Lawsa non-partisan PAC that aims to “protect all Tennesseans’ rights to participate in the political process without unreasonable interference from the state government”—has secured an injunction prohibiting the State of Tennessee from favoring partisan speakers.  The effect of the Court’s ruling is that non-partisan PACs are now able to make direct campaign contributions during the most critical period before an electionsomething that partisan PACs have been able to do for decades.  The Tennessean has more: https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2018/09/27/nashville-judge-rules-against-tennessee-lawsuit-over-blackout-period-pacs/1437231002/ 

Daniel Horwitz is a campaign finance and election lawyer based in Nashville, Tennessee.  Selected case documents and media reports about the case are available below.  If you would like to purchase a consultation from Horwitz, you can do so using the following form:

Consultation Payment Form

Payment for: 30-Minute Consultation

Amount: $200.00

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...

Selected Case Documents:

Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Support of a Preliminary Injunction

Defendants’ Answer

Plaintiff’s Pre-Trial Brief

Defendants’ Pre-Trial Brief

Selected Media Coverage:

-The Tennessean: Nashville judge rules against state in lawsuit over ‘blackout period’ for PACs

-Nashville Post: Court strikes down ‘blackout period’ campaign finance provision

-The Tennessean: Tennessee sued over PAC contributions ‘blackout period’ before elections

April 20, 2018

Horwitz Wins Defamation Suit on Behalf of Restaurateur (Again)

In another resounding win, celebrated Nashville restaurateur Randy Rayburn has again beaten back a multi-million dollar defamation and false light lawsuit filed against him by Thomas Nathan Loftis, Sr., the former director of Nashville State’s culinary program.  In a unanimous ruling, the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the outright dismissal of Mr. Loftis’s claims on the basis that Loftis had advanced a “far-fetched and not a reasonable interpretation” of the statements that he had sued over, and that “the statements in the newspaper article are not defamatory as a matter of law.”  The Court of Appeals also ordered Mr. Loftis to pay for the costs of the lawsuit, and it further ordered the Trial Court to determine whether Loftis must pay Mr. Rayburn’s legal fees.

Given the serious threat that the case posed to the viability of newsgathering in Tennessee, the lawsuit attracted national attention from First Amendment organizations like The First Amendment Center’s Newseum Institute and TechDirt. The Court of Appeals’ decision constitutes a total victory and complete vindication for Mr. Rayburn, who has maintained that the lawsuit was frivolous from the beginning.  “We’re thrilled about this resounding win, which fully vindicates Mr. Rayburn and the First Amendment yet again,” said Daniel Horwitz, Mr. Rayburn’s attorney.  “Filing a lawsuit this frivolous was a very poor decision, and unfortunately for Mr. Loftis, it is about to become an expensive one as well.”

Daniel Horwitz is a First Amendment and speech defense lawyer based in Nashville, Tennessee.  Selected case documents and media reports about the case are available below.  If you would like to purchase a consultation from Horwitz, you can do so using the following form:

Consultation Payment Form

Payment for: 30-Minute Consultation

Amount: $200.00

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...

Selected Case Documents:

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint

Plaintiff’s Response to Motion to Dismiss (1)/Plaintiff’s Response to Motion to Dismiss (2)

Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Response

Transcript of Hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

*Order Dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint With Prejudice

Brief of Plaintiff-Appellant Thomas Nathan Loftis, Sr.

Brief of Defendant-Appellee and Cross-Appellant Randy Rayburn

*Appellate Court Order Denying Plaintiff’s Appeal and Remanding for Consideration of Attorney’s Fees Award

Selected Media Coverage:

-The Tennessean: Defamation lawsuit against restaurateur Randy Rayburn dismissed — again

-TechDirt: Judge Dumps Stupid Libel Suit Featuring A Man Suing A Third Party For Things A Journalist Said

-Nashville Business Journal: Nashville restaurateur Randy Rayburn faces $1.5 million lawsuit

-TechDirt: Former University Official Files Libel Lawsuit Against His Replacement For Things A Journalist Said

-Nashville Business Journal: Judge dismisses $1.5M suit against well-known restaurateur

-First Amendment Center’s Newseum Institute: Unusual Defamation Suit Targets Source of Story