On the same day the plaintiff in the 3M v. Boulter moved to strike the anti-SLAPP motion filed by the Davis defendants on the basis that the statute violates the DC Home Rule, the defendants in the Dean v. NBC Universal case filed their reply brief, responding to the same argument in the plaintiffs’ opposition.
According to the defendants, the opposition brief does not respond to the arguments made by the defendants in their opening brief, but instead distorts and mischaracterizes the relevant facts. While the plaintiff repeatedly argued that Maddow failed to include “material quotes” from Dean’s statement, the defendants argue that he has not identified any such fact “that would have altered the meaning of the statements that were played.”
Turning to the Home Rule argument, the defendants argue that there is no indication in the original Home Rule Act, or its legislative history, that Congress intended to prohibit the DC Council from passing legislation like the anti-SLAPP statute. They note that Congress could have disapprove the statute during the period required for review under the Home Rule Act, and did not. They also argue that numerous courts have held that other SLAPP statutes do not conflict with court rules.
As I wrote when Dean filed his opposition brief, the attack on the statute’s constitutionality prompted the DC Attorney General to move to intervene in Snyder. I still expect that to happen here