Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-223.2 (2026)

Immunity of persons for statements made at public hearing or communicated to third party

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. A person shall be immune from tort liability if the tort claim is based solely on statements (i) regarding matters of public concern that would be protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States made by that person that are communicated to a third party, (ii) made at a public hearing before, or otherwise communicated to, the governing body of any locality or other political subdivision, or the boards, commissions, agencies and authorities thereof, and other governing bodies of any local governmental entity concerning matters properly before such body, (iii) made at a Title IX hearing before the applicable tribunal of an institution of higher education, or (iv) made by an employee against an employer where retaliatory action arising from such statements is prohibited by § 40.1-27.3.

B. The immunity provided by this section shall not apply to any statements that the declarant knew or should have known were false or were made with reckless disregard for whether they were false.

C. Any person who has a suit against him dismissed or a witness subpoena or subpoena duces tecum quashed, or otherwise prevails in a legal action, pursuant to the immunity provided by this section may be awarded reasonable attorney fees and costs.

2007, c. 798; 2016, c. 239; 2017, cc. 586, 597; 2020, c. 824; 2023, cc. 462, 463; 2025, c. 641.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 30 cases (23 in the last 5 years), 2008–2026 · leading case: Gilmore v. Jones, 370 F. Supp. 3d 630 (W.D. Va. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gilmore v. Jones, 370 F. Supp. 3d 630 (W.D. Va. 2019). · cites it 18× “2 Defendants move for immunity and attorneys' fees under Va. Code § 8.01-223.2. (Dkts. 46; 56; 58).”

Steele v. Goodman, 382 F. Supp. 3d 403 (E.D. Va. 2019). · cites it 6× “Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-223.2 . Goodman does not challenge Count II (the insulting words claim), Count IV (the common law conspiracy claim), Count VI (the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim), Count VII (the computer claims), Count VIII (the unauthorized use claim),…”

Edwards v. Schwartz, 378 F. Supp. 3d 468 (W.D. Va. 2019). · cites it 2× “The defendants have also moved for attorney's fees pursuant to Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-223.2 . This matter was removed from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Virginia, to the United States District Court for Western District of Virginia on August 1, 2018.”

Smithfield Foods, Inc. v. United Food & Com. Workers Int'l Union, 593 F. Supp. 2d 840 (E.D. Va. 2008). · cites it 12× “The Defendants’ Affirmative Defense To The Plaintiffs’ Tortious Interference Claims The Defendants have asserted two affirmative defenses to the Plaintiffs’ tortious interference counts in the Amended Complaint. First, the Defendants contend that “truth” is a defense to a claim…”

Justin Fairfax v. CBS Corp., 2 F.4th 286 (4th Cir. 2021). “” Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-223.2 (B). The district court reasoned that an award pursuant to this provision is permissive, not mandatory or presumptive, and denied CBS’s fee request because Fairfax’s allegations were not frivolous or made in bad faith.”

Samuel Rolofson v. Brittany Fraser (Va. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 49× “lofson’s defamation claims against Brittany Fraser arising from a May 15, 2020 Board of Inquiry1 (“BOI”) hearing as “qualifiedly privileged” without permitting him to present evidence of malice, (2) dismissing Rolofson’s defamation claim against Fraser arising from an alleged…”

Brittany Fraser v. Samuel Rolofson (Va. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 49× “lofson’s defamation claims against Brittany Fraser arising from a May 15, 2020 Board of Inquiry1 (“BOI”) hearing as “qualifiedly privileged” without permitting him to present evidence of malice, (2) dismissing Rolofson’s defamation claim against Fraser arising from an alleged…”

Jamie Allen Harless v. Kenneth E. Nicely (Va. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 27× “The defendants’ assignment of cross-error states, “The trial court erred in denying Defendants’ Plea of Immunity pursuant to Virginia’s Anti-SLAPP statute, Va. Code § 8.01-223.2, because each of the alleged statements regarded a matter of public concern protected under the First…”

Jonathan Hale v. Joseph Cauzzort (Va. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 15× “In their demurrer, they claimed immunity under Code § 8.01-223.2 and, alternatively, that Cauzzort’s complaint failed to “sufficiently allege[] facts that arise to actionable defamation.”

Malone v. WP Co., LLC (W.D. Va. 2023). · cites it 14× “Here, the immunity provided by Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-223.2 applies to the Washington Post.”

William Joseph Petrak v. Ryan Sawyers (Va. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 14× “Code § 8.01-223.2.” For the reasons below, we agree that the trial court erred in overruling Petrak’s demurrer and denying him statutory immunity.”

Hutchens v. McDougal (E.D. Va. 2022). · cites it 11× “ANALYSIS Defendant argues that this Court must grant her Motion and award attorney’s fees and costs under Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-223.2 , also known as the Virginia Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (“anti-SLAPP”) law.”

Show all 30 citing cases →

— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-223.2(A) — 10 cases

Gilmore v. Jones, 370 F. Supp. 3d 630 (W.D. Va. 2019). “2 Defendants move for immunity and attorneys' fees under Va. Code § 8.01-223.2. (Dkts. 46; 56; 58).”

Samuel Rolofson v. Brittany Fraser (Va. Ct. App. 2024). “lofson’s defamation claims against Brittany Fraser arising from a May 15, 2020 Board of Inquiry1 (“BOI”) hearing as “qualifiedly privileged” without permitting him to present evidence of malice, (2) dismissing Rolofson’s defamation claim against Fraser arising from an alleged…”

Brittany Fraser v. Samuel Rolofson (Va. Ct. App. 2024). “lofson’s defamation claims against Brittany Fraser arising from a May 15, 2020 Board of Inquiry1 (“BOI”) hearing as “qualifiedly privileged” without permitting him to present evidence of malice, (2) dismissing Rolofson’s defamation claim against Fraser arising from an alleged…”

Jonathan Hale v. Joseph Cauzzort (Va. Ct. App. 2026). “In their demurrer, they claimed immunity under Code § 8.01-223.2 and, alternatively, that Cauzzort’s complaint failed to “sufficiently allege[] facts that arise to actionable defamation.”

Jamie Allen Harless v. Kenneth E. Nicely (Va. Ct. App. 2024). “The defendants’ assignment of cross-error states, “The trial court erred in denying Defendants’ Plea of Immunity pursuant to Virginia’s Anti-SLAPP statute, Va. Code § 8.01-223.2, because each of the alleged statements regarded a matter of public concern protected under the First…”

— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-223.2(A)(i) — 3 cases

William Joseph Petrak v. Ryan Sawyers (Va. Ct. App. 2025). “Code § 8.01-223.2.” For the reasons below, we agree that the trial court erred in overruling Petrak’s demurrer and denying him statutory immunity.”

— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-223.2(A)(ii) — 2 cases

— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-223.2(B) — 11 cases

Malone v. Breggin (W.D. Va. 2024).

Harrison v. Rva Dirt, LLC Please File in This Case Only! Do Not File in Member Case! (E.D. Va. 2025).

— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-223.2(C) — 2 cases

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.