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 permanently 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 was not coincidental.
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 law firm of Rainone Coughlin & Minchello, which also serves as longtime municipal counsel for the City of Rahway. The firm has been repeatedly criticized by government watchdogs and political editorials for exploiting New Jersey’s “pay-to-play” system—where political donations by government contractors coincide with lucrative public contracts. In 2024 alone, 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. The Mayor 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 in violation of 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 acknowledged the ban was unjustified and agreed to reinstate Levy and Vandever.
That settlement collapsed after Rainone Coughlin & Minchello assumed representation of all defendants.
Levy and Vandever sought to disqualify the firm due to apparent conflicts arising from its simultaneous representation of multiple parties with divergent financial and legal interests. Although the disqualification motion was denied, the firm responded by filing a counterclaim accusing the plaintiffs of “malicious abuse of process” for filing the disqualification motion and publicly criticizing Rahway officials and the firm itself—conduct squarely protected by 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. Rainone Coughlin 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.
The appeal presents a stark question: Will New Jersey’s Anti-SLAPP law meaningfully protect residents who speak out against entrenched political power—or will retaliatory lawsuits remain a viable tool for silencing dissent from the political machine?