House Bill 169 (HB 169) enacts the Public Expression Protection Act (Act) that provides immunity from suit for any cause of action concerning protected speech under the Act.   

 House Bill 169 (HB 169) enacts the Public Expression Protection Act (Act).  This Act provides immunity from a lawsuit – and not just immunity from liability – for any cause of action concerning protected speech or communication under the Act. 
The Act applies to a civil lawsuit against a person that was based on the person’s: (1) communication, and communication on an issue under review, in a legislative, executive, judicial, administrative or other governmental proceeding; or (2) exercise of the right of freedom of speech/press, the right to assemble or petition or the right of association, on a matter of public concern. 
Within 60 days of being served with a pleading that asserts a cause of action to which the Act applies, the party may file a special motion for expedited relief to dismiss all or part of the case.  Upon this special motion to dismiss, the proceeding is paused until the motion is decided.  If a party appeals the order, the proceedings are paused once again.  However, certain motions can be heard during this pause in the proceeding.  
The court must hear the motion to dismiss within 60 days of filing and rule on the motion within 60 days of the hearing. The court must dismiss the cause of action in whole or in part if the relevant portions of the Act apply and the exclusions to the Act do not apply. The court must also consider whether the responding party failed to establish a case as to each element of the cause of action, whether the responding party failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted, or whether there was no genuine issue of material fact.  
Even if a party voluntarily dismisses its lawsuit subject to a motion to dismiss under the Act, the other party can still ask the court for attorney fees and costs. Moreover, a voluntary dismissal establishes that the moving party prevailed in the motion to dismiss.  Attorney fees, court costs and expenses are awarded to: (a) the party who filed the motion to dismiss if that motion was successful; or (b) the party who responded to the motion to dismiss if that party prevailed and the court determined that the motion was frivolous or filed to delay the proceeding. 
The Act does not apply to: a case brought against a governmental employee acting in an official capacity; a case brought by a governmental employee to enforce a law to protect against an imminent threat to public health or safety; or a case brought against a person primarily engaged in the selling or leasing of goods or services (this does not include artistic, literary, musical, political or journalistic work).  
The Act applies to a civil action filed or cause of action asserted after July 1, 2025, the effective date of the Act.
HB 169 repeals Sections 38-2-9.1 (motion to dismiss specious lawsuits); and 38-2-9.1 (public policy in New Mexico against baseless civil lawsuits that chill and punish participation in public affairs).   

 Currently, Section 38-2-9.1 (which HB 169 repeals) allows a party to file a motion to dismiss a specious lawsuit. A specious lawsuit refers to a type of lawsuit intended to harass or intimidate the defendant.  This section allows a party to file a special motion to dismiss to be heard on an expedited basis by the court for “any action seeking money damages against a person for conduct or speech undertaken or made in connection with a public hearing or public meeting…” The section does not provide as many details as HB 169.    

 The House Judiciary Committee Substitute for HB 169 makes the following changes to the original bill: 
•	Renames the Public Expression Protection Act the “Uniform Public Expression Protection Act”
•	Adds a “findings and purpose section” that finds that it is the public policy of New Mexico to protect the rights of its citizens to participate in First Amendment activities.  It states that baseless lawsuits have been filed against persons for exercising these rights and they should be promptly dismissed to prevent an abuse of the legal process and avoid imposing a financial burden in defending against them. The purpose of the Act is to protect New Mexicans from the abuse of the legal process for participating in First Amendment activities as set forth in the Act. 
•	Removes the provision that the Act confers substantive immunity from suit, not merely from liability.