After initially arguing that the plaintiffs’ opposition had failed to respond to the majority of their arguments, they address the two attacks on the statute – that it violates the Home Rule and is inapplicable in federal court.
Defendants first argue that the Home Rule and its legislative history “are devoid of any indication that Congress intended to prohibit the Council from enacting legislation that conferred substantive rights on defendants that are targeted with meritless litigation as a result of speaking on an issue of public concern.” They also note that the anti-SLAPP legislation was submitted to Congress for a 30-day review, and that Congress did not disapprove the act during this period.
Echoing arguments previously made here, here and here, the Maddow defendants argue that the anti-SLAPP statute did not alter or change the jurisdiction of the courts, and thus does not violate the Home Rule Act.
The same brief argues that the anti-SLAPP statute indisputably applies in federal court, and notes that this position is well supported: “every Circuit Court to have considered the issue . . . has concluded that state Anti-SLAPP statues do not conflict with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and may be applied in a federal court sitting in diversity.” While acknowledging the contrary decision in 3M v. Boulter, they argue that this decision is contrary to the weight of authority, as that court recognized.