Frederick Frazier, then a Texas state representative and police officer, was caught on video cutting down signs of his 2022 opponent Paul Chabot, pled guilty in municipal court, was indicted on two felonies, and later accepted a plea deal with probation and victim restitution to Chabot.¹ Under internal investigation, Frazier was dishonorably discharged from the Dallas Police Department in December 2023.² In the 2024 campaign Chabot's political action committee ran FireFrazier.com and placed signs near polling places reading "FIRE FRAZIER," "CONVICTED," "LIED TO VOTERS" and "DISHONORABLY DISCHARGED".³ Chabot says Frazier had confidentially appealed the discharge to the state law-enforcement commission, hid its change to a "general discharge," and sent a cease-and-desist letter with no specifics.⁴ Frazier says Chabot ran a "public crusade" of false statements and kept publishing them after being put on notice of their falsity by Frazier and by Chabot's own news sources.⁵ Frazier lost the primary after raising over $2 million.⁶

Frazier sued Chabot for defamation over statements made in the campaign, and Chabot moved to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act; the 429th District Court of Collin County held a hearing on October 21, 2024 and denied the motion, finding Frazier made a prima facie case of defamation and actual malice and awarding him attorney's fees.¹ The Fifth Court of Appeals (Dallas) affirmed in a memorandum opinion issued July 30, 2025.² The Supreme Court granted review on June 19, 2026.

Petition for review from the Fifth Court of Appeals (Dallas); granted June 19, 2026. Oral argument: November 4, 2026.

• Chabot:¹ whether the courts below erred in denying the TCPA motion, where Frazier was convicted, pled no contest to crimes involving Chabot's signs, and was dishonorably discharged, and then claimed Chabot's statements that he was "convicted" and "dishonorably discharged" were defamatory.
• Frazier:² (1) whether the trial court and court of appeals erred in denying the motion when both found he established a prima facie case of defamation; and (2) whether the court of appeals erred in holding he made a prima facie case of actual malice when Chabot was expressly on notice of the falsity of the statements.

Under the TCPA, a claimant must present clear and specific evidence of each essential element of the claim, not allegations or conclusions.¹

Whether Frazier's claims should have been dismissed.

Chabot (Petitioner): Frazier did not make the timely and sufficient request the Defamation Mitigation Act requires, pleaded eight statements and then abandoned most of them in favor of unpleaded publications, and produced no clear and specific evidence of falsity, actual malice, or damages on those that remain.¹ The gist of the statements was substantially true, Frazier was libel-proof because his misconduct was already widely reported, presumed damages are unavailable because the statements did not meet the removal-from-office standard, Section 230 bars liability for republishing third-party news articles, and actual malice cannot rest on Frazier's denial and Chabot's refusal to retract.² In reply, he says the court of appeals' holding that receipt of a demand letter alone proved actual malice conflicts with established law and that it ignored this Court's recent substantial-truth holding.³

Frazier (Respondent): At the petition stage he argued that Chabot published and republished demonstrably false statements after being put on notice, that four judges had found a prima facie case, and that there must be an outer limit beyond which knowingly false statements about a public figure are actionable.⁴ He agreed with Chabot and the amici that the case presents an important and novel question, because no reported case since 2011 appears to have let an elected official's defamation claim survive an anti-SLAPP motion.⁵

Chabot argued the court of appeals' decision substantially narrows the TCPA's protection of core political speech about a public official's fitness and dilutes the actual-malice standard by treating a cease-and-desist letter and a refusal to retract as enough.¹ Frazier agreed that merits review was appropriate and asked the Court to clarify that defamation claims by officials and candidates remain actionable when statements are knowingly false.²

• Three amicus curiae briefs were filed; they are not summarized here.