News · Explainer
What is the TPPA, and why do both sides invoke it in Harpole v. Owens?
The Tennessee Public Participation Act is the state's anti-SLAPP law. It lets a defendant ask a court to screen out lawsuits that target protected speech early, before full discovery.
By Americans for Transparency · Published
The short answer
The Tennessee Public Participation Act, or TPPA, is the state's anti-SLAPP law. It gives a defendant sued over speech on a matter of public concern a way to ask the court to dismiss the suit early and shift fees, before the expense of full discovery. In Harpole v. Owens, both the Owens defendants and Mitchell Snow filed TPPA petitions, arguing the lawsuit targets protected speech. No court has ruled on them.
- TPPA stands for the Tennessee Public Participation Act, the state's anti-SLAPP statute.
- Anti-SLAPP laws let defendants ask a court to screen out suits that target protected speech early.
- A successful petition can lead to early dismissal and an award of legal fees.
- In this case both the Owens defendants and Snow filed TPPA petitions; neither has been decided.
What "anti-SLAPP" means
A SLAPP is a lawsuit that critics say is brought less to win than to burden someone for speaking out. Anti-SLAPP laws give a defendant a fast route to ask a court to test such a suit early. If the speech is on a matter of public concern and the claim cannot meet a heightened showing, the court can dismiss it before the parties spend heavily on discovery, and can order the losing side to pay fees.[1]
The Tennessee version
The Tennessee Public Participation Act is Tennessee's anti-SLAPP statute. A defendant files a petition under it; the court then decides whether the suit relates to protected speech and, if so, whether the plaintiff has shown enough to proceed. It is a procedural screen, not a ruling on who is telling the truth.[2]
How it appears in this case
Both sides of the defense invoked it. The Owens defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss together with a TPPA petition on August 6, 2026. Snow filed his own TPPA motion on September 7, 2026. Each argues the lawsuit targets speech on a matter of public concern.[2][3]
Los Angeles Magazine, reporting on the motions, noted the court had not ruled on them. The full-district recusal has left the petitions pending.[1][3]
“The court has yet to make a ruling on either of these issues.”
Questions people ask
Does a TPPA petition decide whether the Fort Huachuca account is true?
No. It is a procedural screen about whether a speech-related suit can proceed. It does not resolve the underlying factual dispute, which the Owens motion says is for a later stage.
What happens if a TPPA petition succeeds?
The targeted claims can be dismissed early, and the court may order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's legal fees. If it fails, the case continues.
Why did both Owens and Snow file one?
Each is a defendant sued over speech, so each can seek the statute's early screen and fee protection. They filed separate petitions, in August and September 2026.
Sources
- [1]Los Angeles Magazine, Candace Owens Moves to Toss Bombshell Lawsuit Accusing Her of Linking Kirk Security Chief to Assassination Plot, September 15, 2026. News report“The court has yet to make a ruling on either of these issues.”
- [2]U.S. District Court, M.D. Tenn., Owens defendants' partial motion to dismiss and TPPA petition, Doc. 31, August 6, 2026. Primary record
- [3]CourtListener / RECAP, Harpole v. Owens, No. 3:26-cv-00556 (M.D. Tenn.), docket sheet, October 12, 2026. Primary record