A legal dispute between a state lawmaker and his election opponent got new life from the state’s top court earlier today.

The Illinois Supreme Court ordered an appeals panel to look into a candidate’s claim that the incumbent’s $9 million defamation suit was aimed at silencing him during their campaign.

The case is one of four civil cases that was denied with specific orders to the lower courts from the Supreme Court. It denied nine criminal cases with orders, while accepting seven criminal cases and five civil cases. The high court denied 255 other criminal case appeals and 176 civil appeals.

Democratic Rep. Scott R. Drury of Highwood filed the suit last year in Cook County Circuit Court, along with a motion for injunctive relief aimed at keeping Mark Neerhof — his Republican opponent for the 58th House District seat on the North Shore — from disseminating any ads “containing false information” about him.

He claimed Neerhof’s campaign and a conservative political action committee, Liberty Principles PAC, placed TV ads and mailers that incorrectly said he supported legislation to change the state’s education-funding formula. The ads also claimed he took that position to appease Democratic leaders.

Neerhof and his campaign filed a Section 2-619 motion to dismiss, arguing Drury’s claims should be tossed because of the Citizen Participation Act, which aims to protect citizens from so-called SLAPPs, or, Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.

He also submitted an affidavit saying neither he, nor his campaign, had anything to do with the advertisements.

The Citizen Participation Act aims to “strike a balance” between free-speech rights and citizens’ rights to file lawsuits when they suffer an injury.

It says, in part, that actions “in furtherance of the constitutional rights to petition, speech, association and participation in government are immune from liability, regardless of intent or purpose, except when not genuinely aimed at procuring favorable government action, result or outcome.”

Cook County Associate Judge Franklin U. Valderrama noted that the law requires a three-step analysis to determine if a lawsuit constitutes a SLAPP. The court must first determine whether the actions in dispute were in furtherance of a right to petition and participate in government, then find that the corresponding lawsuit is related to those actions. If those conditions are met, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to produce clear evidence that the disputed conduct was not in furtherance of those rights.

Valderrama ruled that Neerhof didn’t satisfy the first prong of that test because he admitted that neither he nor his campaign placed the advertisements Drury took issue with.

Neerhof “cannot be found to be acting in furtherance of government participation when Neerhof, by his own admission, was not the actor of the alleged defamatory statements,” Valderrama wrote. “Put another way, Drury’s lawsuit cannot be in retaliation of Neerhof’s acts if Neerhof did not participate in any acts.”

Valderrama dismissed some counts in Drury’s defamation case, but other allegations are pending.

The trial court decision in January, two months after Drury was re-elected by about 3,000 votes in the November general election.

Neerhof appealed the ruling on his motion to dismiss, but the 1st District Appellate Court declined to take up Neerhof’s appeal on that issue two months later.

Today, the Illinois Supreme Court also declined to intervene directly, but ordered the appeals panel to address Neerhof’s petition.

“The appellate court is directed to grant defendants Mark Neerhof and Neerhof for Illinois’ petition for leave to appeal and to address the appeal on its merits,” the order stated.

Luke DeGrand, of DeGrand & Wolfe P.C., represented Neerhof.

“We are pleased that the Supreme Court has directed the appellate court to look at what we consider to be important free-speech issues concerning the scope of the Illinois Citizen Participation Act in the context of a political campaign,” DeGrand said in a prepared statement. “We look forward to addressing these important issues before the appellate court.”

But in briefs submitted to the Supreme Court, he argued that the consequences of the trial court’s decision are “erroneous” and “far-reaching.”

“As the litigation currently stands, Neerhof faces years of costly litigation as a result of his decision to seek public office,” the briefs state.

Without a different appellate ruling, the briefs say, Drury’s lawsuit will have achieved the goals of a strategic lawsuit: “punishing his political opponent, squelching dissent and participation in government and serving as a warning shot to anyone who might challenge his re-election in the future.”

Larry D. Drury of Larry D. Drury Ltd. represented Scott Drury, his son. He also could not be reached for comment, but his arguments to the court stated that Neerhof’s views of the Citizen Participation Act are too expansive.

“[I]t does not apply to legitimate lawsuits seeking relief for defamatory acts, even if the defamation occurs in a political campaign,” his reply brief states.

The case is Scott R. Drury v. Mark Neerhof, No. 119176.