CCR and co-counsel file their supplemental brief on behalf of the co-op board members to the Washington Supreme Court, and plaintiffs also file their supplemental brief.

The Washington State Court of Appeals affirms the trial court's dismissal of the lawsuit. The court holds that the lawsuit is a SLAPP and that participation in the boycott is protected by the First Amendment. The court also affirms $160,000 in statutory damages, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs for the board members, and awards attorneys’ fees for the appeal. The lawsuit is part of a broader pattern of targeting pro-Palestinian activists in the United States, particularly in legislatures and across college campuses.

The Lawfare Project, which is dedicated, in its own words, to fighting "the effort by enemies of the State of Israel to delegitimize Israel and impair its ability to defend itself," submits an amicus brief on January 27, 2014. In their answer to the amicus brief, filed on February 11, 2014, CCR and co-counsel note that "the Project's amicus brief appears to be an extension of its campaign against organizations that boycott Israeli goods or services, this time filed under the guise of protecting Washington nonprofit corporations from allegedly 'rogue actions' by their corporate boards." We argue that "the amicus submission confirms the widespread ramifications of Respondents' efforts, and is a reminder of the significant matters of public concern at the heart of this appeal.... If anything, the Project's sudden involvement in this action shows that this blunderbuss lawsuit is, in fact, about silencing speech and initimidating Respondents, the majority of whom were not involved in the decision to boycott.... The Project has as its central mission the defense of Israel, not the enforcement of organizational bylaws, Washington's corporate governance scheme, or even free speech principles (which apply with equal force to all political speech). The brief and this lawsuit plainly target Respondents' exercise of their First Amendment right to advocate and implement a boycott."

After a hearing on fees and costs, Judge McPhee rules that plaintiffs are liable for the costs and fees of the suit and $160,000 in statutory damages. The plaintiffs purported to bring the SLAPP on behalf of the co-op itself, which has approximately 22,000 members. They argue that the co-op should bear the costs rather than the plaintiffs individually. The judge rejects this argument and awards $10,000 for each defendant board member, plus attorneys’ fees.

The court issues its oral opinion, deciding the Anti-SLAPP statute applies and stating that it is prepared to dismiss plaintiffs’ lawsuit and award defendants attorneys’ fees and penalties. The judge also upholds the constitutionality of Washington’s Anti-SLAPP law, which plaintiffs had challenged.

CCR and co-counsel file a special motion to strike the lawsuit, urging the court to strike down plaintiffs’ effort to silence the co-op’s principled stand on Israel’s human rights violations through a policy of BDS. The special motion to strike requires parties who bring a lawsuit to demonstrate that it is not a Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP) suit targeting constitutionally-protected free speech. SLAPPs are civil complaints or counterclaims that target the constitutional rights of free speech and petition in connection with an issue of public concern, as well as lawful conduct in furtherance of such rights. While many cases that qualify as SLAPPs are without legal merit, they can effectively achieve their principal purpose: to chill public debate on specific issues. Defending against a SLAPP requires substantial money, time, and legal resources, and can divert attention away from the public issue and intimidate and silence others.