Alan R. Levy and Lisa S. Vandever—politically active residents of Rahway, New Jersey—are appealing a lower-court ruling allowing a retaliatory lawsuit to proceed against them despite New Jersey’s recently enacted Anti-SLAPP statute, the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA).
Levy and Vandever, married for 20 years, are a politically active “mixed” couple. Vandever ran in the 2024 Democratic primary for Rahway City Council, earning 31% of the vote. Levy is an elected member of the Union County Republican Committee. For years, both regularly participated in Rahway Community Voice (RCV), a 20,000-member Facebook group that presents itself as a community “public square.”
Levy and Vandever were censored and banned from RCV. One of the admins responsible for the ban, Tom O’Reilly, also served as Chair of the 2024 Rahway Democratic Campaign Committee. Vandever had recently run a primary challenge against a Democratic incumbent backed by that same Committee. The timing of O’Reilly’s censorship appeared suspect, at least to Levy and Vandever.
Levy and Vandever filed suit in New Jersey Superior Court, alleging unlawful viewpoint discrimination under long-standing New Jersey constitutional protections for speech in privately owned spaces that function as public forums, consistent with Pruneyard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980).
O’Reilly retained the very capable law firm of Rainone Coughlin & Minchello, which also serves as longtime municipal counsel for the City of Rahway. The firm has been criticized by some government watchdogs and political editorials the appearance that political donations by government contractors sometimes coincide with lucrative public contracts. In 2024, the firm donated nearly $50,000 to Rahway Democratic Party committees while billing the City close to $1 million annually in taxpayer-funded legal fees. Naturally, this could simply be a coincidence. The Mayor of Rahway and all nine City Council members are members of O’Reilly’s Democratic Campaign Committee.
The trial court denied O’Reilly’s motion to dismiss, finding sufficient evidence that Levy and Vandever were banned for criticizing Rahway’s elected officials, and this violated the New Jersey Constitution. Following that ruling, the remaining RCV administrators—who had no ties to the Democratic Committee—contacted the plaintiffs to settle the case. They were willing to reinstate Levy and Vandever.
That settlement collapsed after Rainone Coughlin & Minchello assumed representation of all defendants. The timing does not necessarily prove that it happened because of the firm, it simply is a fact that one happened, and then the other happened.
Levy and Vandever however, believed that it was not simply correlation, but causation. Thus, they sought to disqualify the firm due to what they perceived as conflicts arising from Rainone Coughlin’s simultaneous representation of multiple parties with divergent interests.
The disqualification motion was denied.
The three defendants then filed a counterclaim accusing the plaintiffs of “malicious abuse of process” for filing the disqualification motion and included allegations that Levy and Vandever’s public criticism of Rahway officials and the firm itself were at issue. This conduct, however, fit squarely within the First Amendment and the Litigation Privilege Doctrine.
Levy and Vandever moved to dismiss the counterclaim under New Jersey’s Anti-SLAPP law, UPEPA, which is designed to halt lawsuits intended to punish or chill public participation. The defendants opposed, prompting our reply brief.
The motion was denied on grounds that, well, if you know anything about law, you read it and come to your own conclusion.
Our position is pretty clear though as articulated in our appeal. And bless Rainone Coughlin’s hearts, they opposed on truly adorable grounds. Our reply is here. And in a pleasant surprise, the ACLU of New Jersey filed an amicus brief in support of our position. (here)
The appeal presents a stark question: Will New Jersey’s Anti-SLAPP law protect residents who speak out against entrenched political power—or will retaliatory lawsuits remain a viable tool for silencing dissent from the political machine?