Since the court granted McMath “one final opportunity to amend” the lawsuit, McMath is now suing Moms for Liberty for “tortious interference” and for a “joint action” First Amendment retaliation claim.

McMath alleges Moms for Liberty interfered with her employment by sending the email complaint urging officials to investigate. Secondly, she alleges the nonprofit and government officials worked together in a “joint action” as partners turning the private Moms for Liberty into a legally responsible government actor.

However, Liberty Counsel argues in the motion that forwarding McMath’s public social media posts to school administrators and requesting an investigation is constitutionally protected petitioning of the government. Since the email contained truthful information protected by free speech principles and an investigation had already begun, the interference claim fails to show any wrongful conduct, noted the motion. As for the “joint action” claim, school officials had control and authority and made independent decisions to review the posts and discipline McMath. The “joint action” claim fails since the second amended complaint offers no facts showing any conspiracy or agreement between Moms for Liberty and government officials, wrote Liberty Counsel.

In the motion, Liberty Counsel also noted that McMath’s lawsuit qualifies as a prohibited Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), which are lawsuits meant to intimidate or silence others from exercising their First Amendment rights, and entitles Moms for Liberty to recover attorney’s fees and costs for having to defend against this lawsuit.

Liberty Counsel’s Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “This lawsuit is meritless because it seeks to impose liability for conduct that is fully protected under the law. The only actions attributed to Moms for Liberty involve providing truthful, publicly available information to the appropriate government agencies and allowing those agencies to make their own independent decisions. Hope McMath’s lawsuit only targets legal petitioning activity and truthful speech on a matter of public concern, which is precisely the type of lawsuit Florida’s anti-SLAPP statute prohibits. Citizens are not liable for government actions, and this case should be dismissed.”