Agencies beware: Injunctive relief against users of the Right-to-Know Law may be increasingly difficult under Pennsylvania’s Anti-SLAPP Statute
Agencies beware: Injunctive relief against users of the Right-to-Know Law may be increasingly difficult under Pennsylvania’s Anti-SLAPP Statute
Recently, Upper Pottsgrove Township announced that their request for a temporary injunction against local resident Matthew Murray was denied by Montgomery County Judge Saltz. The Township sought this injunction to halt what they describe as an “abuse” of Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law (“RTKL”), pointing to over 100 requests filed by Murray that have allegedly cost the Township more than $55,000 in legal fees. While the Township appears to remain committed to pursuing a permanent injunction, the denial of temporary relief raises significant questions about the viability of their approach — particularly in light of Pennsylvania’s recently enacted “anti-SLAPP” statute.
The Right-to-Know Law and Injunctions: A High Bar to Clear
Pennsylvania’s RTKL, codified at 65 P.S. §§ 67.101 et seq., grants citizens the right to access public records from government agencies, fostering transparency and accountability. However, the law includes safeguards against misuse. Notably, Section 506(a) permits agencies to deny requests if they are “disruptive;” however, the RTKL narrowly defines a disruptive request as one involving “repeated requests” (as in, more than one) for the same record that have “placed an unreasonable burden on the agency.”
Here, Upper Pottsgrove Township sought an injunction in Upper Pottsgrove Township v. Matthew E. Murray, 2025-00481 (Mont. Com. Pl.) arguing that Murray’s filing of over 100 requests constitutes harassment or an undue burden, citing a purported expenditure of over $55,000 in legal fees. Yet, Judge Jeffrery Saltz, earlier this year, denied the temporary injunction, signaling that the Township failed to meet the stringent requirements, at least with respect to preliminary injunctive relief.
In Pennsylvania, a temporary injunction requires the moving party to demonstrate:
- A likelihood of success on the merits,
- Irreparable harm absent relief,
- A balance of equities favoring the injunction, and
- That the public interest supports the action.
The denial suggests that the Township may not have provided sufficient evidence of Murray’s intent to disrupt — beyond the volume of requests — or convincingly shown irreparable harm. Courts are cautious about injunctions that could restrict statutory rights, such as those under the RTKL, which may explain the judge’s interpretation of the law in this instance.
Pennsylvania’s Anti-SLAPP Statute: A Game-Changer for Requesters
Adding complexity to the Township’s strategy is Pennsylvania’s “anti-SLAPP” statute, enacted in July 2024, titled the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (“UPEPA”). “SLAPP” stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation — lawsuits aimed at silencing critics through legal intimidation. The anti-SLAPP law protects “public expression,” including constitutional rights for speech and to petition the government guaranteed under the United States and Pennsylvania constitutions, by allowing defendants to file a special motion to dismiss such claims early in litigation.
Murray’s Right-to-Know requests very likely fall within this protected category, as they are a form of petitioning the government for information and an exercise of speech rights. The Township’s lawsuit, seeking to enjoin further requests, could be viewed as an attempt to chill this right, and Murray could file an anti-SLAPP motion that could mandate that the Township pay Murray’s attorney’s fees, court costs and expenses.
Given the denial of the temporary injunction, the Township’s case already appears shaky, and an anti-SLAPP motion could expedite dismissal of the entire lawsuit.
The Township’s Dilemma: Legitimate Concern or Overreach?
The Township’s frustration is not without merit. Responding to over 100 requests from a single individual can strain limited resources, and the alleged amount of $55,000 in legal fees is no small sum. Section 506(a) of the RTKL offers a remedy by allowing denials of disruptive requests, but this requires concrete evidence of repetitive requests and a substantial burden. The judge’s ruling suggests the Township has not yet met this evidentiary threshold, at least for preliminary relief.
Pursuing a permanent injunction, as the Township intends, carries risks. If perceived as retaliatory, their action could trigger anti-SLAPP consequences, including fee awards to Murray. Moreover, a successful injunction might deter other citizens from filing legitimate RTKL requests, undermining transparency — a core purpose of the law.
Conclusion: A Cautionary Tale
Upper Pottsgrove Township’s bid to enjoin Murray under the RTKL reflects a clash between resource management and transparency. However, the denial of temporary relief and the protections of Pennsylvania’s anti-SLAPP statute likely will tilt the scales in Murray’s favor. As the Township presses for a permanent injunction, they must tread carefully — a failure to substantiate their claims could prove costly, both financially and in terms of public trust. This case serves as a reminder that injunctive relief against RTKL requesters is a steep hill to climb, particularly with new legal tools like the anti-SLAPP statute empowering citizens to fight back.
