Chandra Law Logo

Emily Moreno invokes Ohio’s new anti-SLAPP law to seek dismissal of Congressman Max Miller’s defamation lawsuit

Wednesday, May 27, 2026

"Accusations of abuse against a congressman/congressional candidate are matters of public concern—and are protected speech," argues the motion.

Emily Moreno invokes Ohio’s new anti-SLAPP law to seek dismissal of Congressman Max Miller’s defamation lawsuit
Congressman Max Miller (official U.S. House of Representatives portrait)

CLEVELAND, OH — Today, Emily Moreno filed a motion for expedited relief in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, asking the court to dismiss Congressman Max Miller’s defamation lawsuit against her. Congressman Miller is her former husband. The motion invokes the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), Ohio’s recently adopted anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) law designed to protect citizens from frivolous lawsuits intended to silence free speech on matters of public concern.

Attempted retaliation and intimidation

The lawsuit, filed by Congressman Miller on May 13, 2026, complains about a Daily Mail article detailing allegations that during their marriage, Miller threw scalding water on Ms. Moreno. The motion seeking to dismiss the suit argues that Miller—a powerful and affluent public official—is wielding his fortune as a weapon to “crush his critics, intimidate his accusers, and silence the victims of his own misconduct.”

“This is the latest example of Congressman Miller seeking to silence and intimidate a woman who has information about his behavior,” said Subodh Chandra, Ms. Moreno’s lead counsel and The Chandra Law Firm’s managing partner. “But the First Amendment and Ohio law rightly don’t allow a public official to weaponize the courts to punish a victim for speech on a matter of public concern. And few things could be of greater public concern than potential violent conduct by an elected official. We are asking the court to end this vexatious litigation and make Miller pay for the unnecessary expense he’s imposing on his ex-wife.”

Key arguments for dismissal

The motion presents several arguments for immediate dismissal under UPEPA, including the following:

  • The truth is a defense: The allegations are true or substantially true, argues the motion. According to an affidavit from Ms. Moreno supporting the motion, on June 8, 2024, after Ms. Moreno stated she was leaving him, Miller allegedly threw hot water from a pan of eggs onto her and sprayed her with a sink hose.

  • The First Amendment protects speech on matters of public concern. Pointing to several examples of media coverage of abusive elected officials, the motion argues that few matters could be more deserving of public concern than alleged information about a member of Congress claimed to be abusive.

  • No involvement in publication: Ms. Moreno did not cause The Daily Mail to publish the article. She neither spoke with their reporters nor directed anyone to leak information on her behalf.

  • The Congressman’s own admissions: During a domestic-relations deposition, a court-appointed parenting coordinator testified that Miller confirmed he had sprayed Ms. Moreno with the sink hose. The motion also includes a note from Miller apologizing to Ms. Moreno after the alleged incident, although the motion observes that portions of the note are subject to multiple interpretations.

  • Statute of limitations: Any alleged speech by Ms. Moreno to others about alleged abuse took place in 2024, and the statute of limitations has expired.

  • The “Streisand effect”: Information about the alleged abuse was already part of the public record through police reports and domestic-relations filings. By suing, Miller has only further publicized the very information he seeks to hide.

Seeking statutory sanctions

Under UPEPA, because Ms. Moreno has shown her alleged speech (even if she had made it) is protected and the lawsuit is meritless, the court must dismiss the action with prejudice. The statute also mandates that the court award Ms. Moreno her reasonable attorney fees, court costs, and litigation expenses.

Ms. Moreno is represented in this matter by Subodh Chandra and Emily Bohatch. The case is captioned Miller v. Moreno, et al., Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas General Division Case No. 26-138810, and is before Judge Joy Kennedy. The motion may be found here.

About The Chandra Law Firm

The Chandra Law Firm is a boutique firm with Ohio and California practices dedicated to vindicating the rights of those facing government or corporate misconduct. The firm focuses its practice in civil rights, whistleblower protection, and First Amendment litigation.

Your case is our cause.®

Related Practice Areas
Constitutional LawDefamation (Libel and Slander)First AmendmentGovernment Ethics, Misconduct, Fraud, & AbuseFirst Amendment RetaliationCalifornia’s Anti-SLAPP StatuteOhio’s Anti-SLAPP Statute
Tags
emily-morenoupepauniform-public-expression-protection-act-(upepa)max-millerdefamationfirst-amendmentanti-slappfirst-amendment-retaliation

Making the right choice in legal representation can make the difference in whether you achieve a result that protects your legal rights and best interests.

Tell Us About Your Case