§ 8.01-223.2.Immunity of persons for statements made at public hearing or communicated to third party.
Chapter 3. Actions · Article 21. Miscellaneous Provisions · Last amended 2025 · Last verified July 16, 2026
In one sentenceSection 8.01-223.2 immunizes a person from tort liability based solely on protected public-concern statements, statements to a local government body, statements at a Title IX hearing, or protected employee statements against an employer, unless the speaker knew or should have known the statements were false, and lets a prevailing party recover attorney fees.
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.
Plain-English Summary
This section gives Virginia its own layer of protection against lawsuits aimed at speech on matters of public concern. Subsection A immunizes a person from tort liability where the claim rests solely on one of four categories of statement: (i) First Amendment-protected statements on matters of public concern communicated to a third party; (ii) statements made at a public hearing before, or otherwise communicated to, a local governing body or its boards, commissions, or agencies; (iii) statements at a Title IX hearing before a higher-education institution’s tribunal; or (iv) an employee’s statements against an employer where retaliation for those statements is barred by § 40.1-27.3.
Subsection B keeps the immunity from becoming a shield for lies: it does not apply to statements the speaker knew or should have known were false, or made with reckless disregard for their truth. That knowing-or-reckless-falsity standard tracks the actual-malice framework used in defamation law involving public figures and public concerns.
Subsection C gives the immunity teeth by adding a fee-shifting remedy. Someone who has a suit against them dismissed, a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum quashed, or who otherwise prevails in a legal action because of this immunity can be awarded reasonable attorney fees and costs, discouraging suits filed to punish or silence protected speech in the first place.
Frequently Asked Questions
What kind of statements does § 8.01-223.2 protect from lawsuits?
Four categories: statements on matters of public concern, protected by the First Amendment, made to a third party; statements made to or at a hearing before a local government body or its boards and commissions; statements at a Title IX hearing at a college or university; and certain employee statements against an employer protected from retaliation under § 40.1-27.3.
Does this immunity protect someone who lies?
No. Subsection B strips the immunity from any statement the person knew or should have known was false, or made with reckless disregard for whether it was false.
Can I recover attorney fees if I am sued over a protected statement and win?
Yes. Subsection C lets a person who has a suit dismissed, a subpoena quashed, or who otherwise prevails based on this immunity recover reasonable attorney fees and costs.
Does this section apply to statements made to a local town council or planning commission?
Yes — statements made at a public hearing before, or otherwise communicated to, the governing body of any locality or political subdivision, or its boards, commissions, agencies, and authorities, fall within the protected categories.
What is the connection between this section and Title IX proceedings?
Subsection A specifically protects statements made at a Title IX hearing before the applicable tribunal of a higher-education institution, extending the same immunity framework to that campus-disciplinary context.
Amendment History
2007, c. 798; 2016, c. 239; 2017, cc. 586, 597; 2020, c. 824; 2023, cc. 462, 463; 2025, c. 641.
Source & verification. Section text and amendment history are
reproduced verbatim from the Code of Virginia, published by the
Code of Virginia, Virginia Division of Legislative Automated Systems. Last verified July 16, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as:virginia anti-slapp statuteimmunity for public comments virginiasued for speaking at a town hall virginiatitle ix hearing statement immunity virginiaattorney fees for dismissed defamation suit virginia