The District has jumped into a lawsuit between Redskins owner Dan Snyder and the Washington City Paper, trying to defend a D.C. law meant to protect free speech that Snyder says is unconstitutional. D.C. Attorney General Irvin Nathan says in court documents filed late Tuesday that a ruling by the D.C. Superior Court against the city’s new anti-SLAPP act (banning strategic lawsuits against public participation) “could have a profound impact on the rights of political participants in the District of Columbia.”
The law went into effect in March — a month before Snyder filed his suit against the City Paper, claiming the alternative weekly published untrue statements about him in a 2010 cover story. Like similar laws passed in more than 25 jurisdictions, the District’s Anti-SLAPP Act is meant to prevent wealthy people and companies from using libel lawsuits to cut into the First Amendment rights of others who might not be able to afford to defend themselves.
“Such cases are often without merit, but achieve the filer’s intention of punishing or preventing opposing points of view, resulting in a chilling effect on the exercise of constitutionally protected rights,” a D.C. Council committee wrote in a 2010 report supporting the act’s passage. The act was introduced by at-large Councilman Phil Mendelson and Ward 3 Councilwoman Mary Cheh, a constitutional lawyer.
| The Anti-SLAPP Act |
| Anti-SLAPP stands for Anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. In the mid-1980s law professors at the University of Denver came up with the name after identifying a pattern of libel lawsuits filed by wealthy individuals and companies against groups that spoke out against them. The professors found the suits had little merit, but used the litigation process to silence their enemies who couldn’t afford to fight back. |
The City Paper has argued in court that Snyder’s suit should be tossed out under the Anti-SLAPP Act. Snyder has argued he can prove the City Paper violated libel laws and his suit should move forward.
He also says in court documents that “while Congress delegated to the D.C. Council the right to legislate local issues, it specifically prohibited the Council from passing legislation to create or modify the procedures used to adjudicate cases filed in the D.C. Superior Court.” The Anti-SLAPP Act, Snyder argues, is therefore unconstitutional because it violates the D.C. Home Rule Act, which gave the District quasi-independence from federal control. Snyder’s attorneys could not be reached on Wednesday.
In his filing, Nathan did not take up the merits of Snyder’s arguments and instead asked the court for the right to file an argument in favor of the law.
In July, the American Civil Liberties Union filed documents in the case arguing in favor of the Anti-SLAPP Act’s use in the case. The ACLU said the law applies to Snyder’s lawsuit because it’s meant to prevent a plaintiff from endlessly fishing for facts to support the plaintiff’s case as the defendant bears the burden of the cost.
And “the facts on the public record suggest that [Snyder] is as likely to prevail on the merits here as Voldemort is to prevail over Harry Potter in their final battle,” the ACLU wrote in its court filing.
