The First Amendment right to petition clause contains a heightened standard precluding liability when a citizen exercises his/her right to bring suit over issues of public concern. Under that standard, the filing of a well-founded lawsuit may not be punished where objectively it is determined to be founded upon some statutory and/or other legally recognized basis, even where his/her suit is brought for some improper purpose [Bill Johnson Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731, 740-43, 103 S.Ct. 2161 (1983); Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 508 U.S. 49, 58, 113 S.Ct. 1920 (1993); BE&K Construction, Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 536 U.S. 516, 525, 528-37, 122 S.Ct. 2390 (2002)]. But this case addresses an issue left open by this Court in BE&K. Can attorney's fees rules/statutes be used to penalize a "pure petition" (meaning a citizen's lawsuit directly against a local government for declaratory and injunctive relief to redress grievances)?

Here the Nevada Supreme Court held in the affirmative, punishing Petitioner through use of a statute that Court characterized as "fee-shifting." Thus the following questions:

1. May a petitioning litigant be held liable for his/her adversary's litigation costs and attorney's fees based upon a punitive statute, where the litigant files a "pure petition" to redress grievances of public concern, and his/her litigation is not a "sham?"

2. Should cases such as Premier Electric Construction Company v. National Electric Contractors Association, Inc., 814 F.2d 358, 373 (7th Cir. 1987) and Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545, 554-57, 134 S.Ct. 1749 (2014), which approve of true "fee-shifting" statutes that trump petitioning immunity, be limited to lawsuits that do not directly involve local government nor seek redress of public grievances? If so, should cases such as Equilon Enterprises, LLC v. Consumer Cause, Inc., 29 Cal.4th 53, 62, 52 P.3d 685 (2002), Vargas v. City of Salinas, 200 Cal.App.4th 1331, 134 Cal.Rptr.3d 244 (2001), and this one, be overruled/vacated?

Can a petitioning litigant be held liable for their adversary's litigation costs and attorney's fees based upon a punitive statute, where the litigant files a 'pure petition' to redress grievances of public concern, and their litigation is not a 'sham?'