Idaho Man Sued For Defamation After Speaking Out Against Local Airstrip
Critics have argued the legal action is a meritless SLAPP suit.

When Gary Gadwa spoke out against a permit for a proposed airstrip in his rural Idaho community, he didn't realize that his comments would result in a defamation lawsuit soon to appear before the Idaho Supreme Court.
In 2021, Michael Boren—co-founder of software company Clearwater Analytics—filed a permit to designate a portion of his Stanley, Idaho property as an airstrip. According to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a First Amendment nonprofit organization providing Gadwa's legal defense, Gadwa decided to publicly oppose the permit after Boren claimed the airstrip could aid in search and rescue missions in the area.
Gadwa, who had worked in search and rescue operations in the nearby Sawtooth National Recreation Area for nearly four decades, wrote an op-ed opposing the airstrip and spoke in a county commission meeting about his concerns. Primarily, Gadwa was worried that the airstrip could hurt local wildlife and that it wouldn't actually be helpful in rescue situations.
"As members of the general public who treasure time spent hiking, horseback riding, and hunting and fishing in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area and advocates for outdoor businesses in Idaho, we're heartened that there is an important chance to halt this dangerous precedent, which threatens one of the most beloved wilderness areas in our state," wrote Gadwa along with Andy Munter, a member of the Idaho Outdoor Business Council, in an opinion article for the Post Register, a local newspaper.
While the airstrip was approved anyway, Boren decided to retaliate against Gadwa and a handful of other critics by filing defamation lawsuits against them. Last year, a state court dismissed Boren's lawsuit against Gadwa, stating that Gadwa and his several co-defendants had a First Amendment right to criticize the airstrip designation.
"In this case, there is the potential for a great chilling effect on constitutional rights not just for these named defendants but for all the members of the public who spoke on this issue, which was undoubtedly a matter of public concern in which they were entitled to involvement," wrote Judge Stevan H. Thompson in his ruling on the case, adding that the suit "appears to be a SLAPP suit brought to violate the constitutional rights."
While most states have laws designed to make it easier to dismiss strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) lawsuits, Idaho doesn't have an anti-SLAPP law. SLAPP suits are meritless legal claims filed to intimate or financially cripple an individual's critics into silence.
Despite defeat, Boren filed an appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court in March. FIRE has since filed a joint brief, written along with other lawyers working on the suit, to the state Supreme Court, urging them to affirm the lower court's ruling.
"The district court was right," reads the joint brief. "The freedoms to speak on public issues and to urge public officials to act are essential for effective self-government. That is why the First Amendment and the Idaho Constitution guarantee freedom of speech and the right to petition. And to uphold those guarantees, courts serve as gatekeepers when lawsuits like Boren's threaten free expression on public matters."
As Boren has already found out—and is likely to find out again at the Idaho Supreme Court—other people have the right to criticize you. While filing expensive defamation lawsuits is a popular technique to silence your political enemies, those you target have the right to fight back.
"I've dedicated my life to two things: protecting my community and protecting the Sawtooth Mountains," said Gadwa in a Monday press release. "I'll never stop speaking my mind, no matter who tries to silence me."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I'm not sure that I understand why the guy shouldn't have been allowed to use his own property as an airstrip. Was it too close to the existing Stanley airport? Too close to other private property lines? Some sort of hazard to neighbors?
As a rural Idahoan, I’ll give you a little perspective.
Imagine you live in a quiet mountain area. Some rich outsider (from California) buys a huge “vacation” property. In a couple years he donates some of his land for an airfield. The house you’ve lived in for 25 years now has air noise. Planes fly over your house daily. The local wildlife has to deal with takeoffs and landing, and the extra road traffic.
I wholeheartedly support property rights, but I completely understand Gadwa’s opposition to the airstrip.
Yet it's not his property, nor can he show how this airstrip physically agrresses against his own property or person. Loss of aesthetic enjoyment is not a property right violation, nor is claimed loss of value by a neighbor's otherwise legal use of his property...
nor is claimed loss of value by a neighbor’s otherwise legal use of his property…
Bullshit. Are houses cheaper or more expensive near an airport?
Airport? I kind doubt the guy is going to be hosting a single flight, much less multiple flights, daily. A private strip that's likely to only be used occasionally is hardly an "airport".
I think basically everyone sucks here. The guy was a cunt for filing the defamation lawsuit, but I disagree that anyone else has any sort of right to say he can or can't land airplanes on his property. If he was trying to open a commercial airstrip, then maybe other people have some sort of say in that. But the article doesn't make clear whether it was that, or if the guy just wanted to be able to legally fly into his own property.
And the article said he was from Boise, which isn't in California last I heard.
It looks to me that the town already has a commercial airport, and this guy just wanted a long patch of his yard declared an 'airstrip' so that it would be legal for him to land his personal plane(s) there.
The commercial strip has been there for at least 24 years based on satellite imagery. It might be that he just didn't want to have to use the same airport as the locals or drive through their town amongst the plebes.
That was my interpretation from the article as well. Which makes the arguments about "harm to wildlife" pretty silly.
That said, Gadwa had every right to his opinions however silly or misinformed. And Boren has no valid defamation claim against him. Boren should get to do whatever he likes with whatever is left of his property after sanctions for a clearly frivolous lawsuit.
The way I read it was he got sued for saying he didn't like the idea of an airstrip. The guy wanting the airstrip said Gadwa defamed him.
Almost all land in the USA is zoned for certain uses and activities. Want to use it for that, no variance is required. For those uses not explicitly granted by the zoning, and an airstrip is not, a zoning variance is requested. This usually goes before some sort of board where those impacted can show just cause as to why the permit variance should not be granted. In this case, the opposed spoke out but the variance was issued. Happens everyday in literally thousands of jurisdictions around the US.
Wow... Talk about a complete violation of citizens rights. Now the government will punish you when you disagree with their central planning.
>>Gadwa decided to publicly oppose the permit after Boren claimed the airstrip could aid in search and rescue missions in the area
crusade?
members of the public who spoke on this issue, which was undoubtedly a matter of public concern in which they were entitled to involvement
Right. Everyone has the right to stick their nose in everyone else's business, even out in the middle of godsdamned nowhere.
People have the right to speak their mind. Whether anyone listens to them is another matter entirely. Considering the suit was filed after the permit was approved, this wasn't even a SLAPP, this was just gratuitous assholery.
Government permission for use of private property is illiberal. Zoning laws are used to restrict unwanted investment. If a neighbor's use of his property physically damages your property or your person, try to resolve it with the neighbor. If you can't reach an accommodation, then sue in court.
But the entire idea of preemptive government interference is unjust...
Both protagonists of this saga seem like total dicks.
One wants to use the state's power to stop the other from doing something on his own property. The other wants to use the state's power for personal revenge.
There’s a fine line here though. Boren wants to build an airstrip on his property which he is entitled to do. But, if such airstrip impacts the neighborhood, then there are problems. This guy Boren is probably a multi millionaire and owns what for aircraft? A Cessna 182 or a Dassault Falcon jet? My guess he owns a jet. Up here in Northern Michigan, on Lake Charlevoix, someone owned a Cessna 208 turboprop on floats and every weekday morning he would start up the plane around 5:00 Am or so which caused quite a ruckus with the neighbors who lived on that lake. I haven’t heard anything in the last couple years about him but the plane no longer flies from the lake.
This is not a case of someone moving next to an airport and complaining about the noise. This is the case of an airport moving next to someone and then suing them when they complain. Boren had every right to request permission to build an airport for his own convenience and Gawda had every right to oppose it as a disruption of his peaceful use of his property and the well being of the local wildlife. The courts heard the case and made its ruling. The only 'wrong' thing was Boren suing Gawda for exercising his constitutional right to petition the government on an issue of public interest. For that, Boren should have to pay.
I agree with everything you said, except I don't think Gawda was complaining about the airstrip affecting his property. I think he was complaining generally about it being property adjoining public land. He still has the right to oppose that, but it's less agregious than an impact on his private property.
Having said that, Boren is still the greater asshole in this case, and should have to pay any legal fees accrued by Gawda.
While Boren may own his own land, he does not own the Air Space above the valley. His neighbors have a say in how the airspace above their own heads gets used.
BTW: I am very familiar with the valley, and have flown my own aircraft into Stanley Airfield dozens of times.
"His neighbors have a say in how the airspace above their own heads gets used."
No they don't.
You haven't seen this doofus filing a complaint against every airline flying a plane over his head for the last forty years.
There is a quite reasonable distinction between an airliner flying over at 30,000 feet and one making a landing/takeoff a few hundred feet overhead. The former has negligible to zero impact, the latter not so much. I don't necessarily agree with the guy complaining, but suing him for an entirely unsuccessful complaint is pure dickery.
On the one hand you have a guy begging for permission to use his own property as his own airstrip, on the other hand you have a goddamn smelly hippie environmentalist who doesn’t believe in private property. I say divide them both in half with a sword and give one half to each mother.
Does the FAA have to OK private airstrips?
According to one of the linked articles:
"Not only is he out of compliance with his scenic easement, but he also neglected to register with the Federal Aviation Administration 90 days before beginning construction of a private airstrip. He failed to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act for 2,000 gallons of fuel stored in proximity to the Salmon River, and never filed a notice of intent or underwent evaluation and proper mitigation necessary before bulldozing potential wetlands."
It doesn't say that they have to approve it, just that they have to be registered.
An "airstrip" is different from an "airport". An "airstrip" is private property that is used t land a small plane. Actually I don't see why the Government should even be involved.
My Companion mother makes 55 bucks an hour on the PC(Personal PC). She has been out of w0rk for quite some time however last month her check was 11,000 bucks only w0rking on the PC(Personal PC) for 9 hours per day.
OPEN>>>>>>bitecoinsallar12.COM
Willing to bet Boren is a democrat using the latest in democrat/Marxist strategies of lawfare against their enemies. Since Trump has been the victim of Marxist lawfare anyone else is now fair game, if they object to whatever liberal -Marxist ideology drives the politics.
I'm surprised Gadwa wasn't paid a visit by FBI SWAT at 5:00AM with CNN in tow. For sure he's now on Myorcass' watch list as a right wing extremist.
Has the definition for "prick" in the Idaho dictionary been updated to include "A Michael Boren".