California's anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16) is designed to protect individuals who speak out on public issues from having their voices chilled through costly legal challenges. The law permits a special motion to strike a complaint in a frivolous suit arising from an act "in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech ... in connection with a public issue". In Castillo v. Pacheco, (CA Ct. App. 2d Dist, April 25, 2007), a California appellate court, in a case of first impression, held that the anti-SLAPP law does not apply to a suit arising from an act of a person in furtherance of the person's right of free exercise of religion.
In the case, plaintiffs, the Castillos, had sued their neighbors, the Pachecos, alleging they were committing a nuisance by lighting large ceremonial outdoor open fires in their backyard. The Pachecos said that the fire was the core element of a religious Native American sweat lodge ritual, and filed an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the nuisance suit. Dismissing the motion, the court rejected "the Pachecos' attempt attempt to conflate the right of free speech and the right of free exercise of religion for purposes of application of the anti-SLAPP statute."
