In the latest rounds of filings in the Daniel Snyder v. Washington City Paper court case, the Washington Redskins' owner took a big swing at the defense's motions to have the case dismissed under the city's statute against Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation (SLAPP - catchy, right?).
Erik Wemple of the Washington Post explains Team Snyder's legal beef with the statute, first by quoting the brief and then explaining:
"Just as sure as ‘Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the freedom of speech,' so, too, the D.C. Council may make no law with respect to the manner in which the D.C. Superior Court conducts its affairs." Then the document invokes Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to "Exercise exclusive legislation" over the District of Columbia. Further, it notes that Congress has "expressly" prohibited the District from effecting "any act, resolution, or rule with respect to any provision of Title 11 of the District of Columbia code (relating to organization and jurisdiction of the District of Columbia courts)."
Snyder's team went on to assert that, regardless of the applicability of the SLAPP statute, his case had ample merit to continue in DC's Superior Court, adding that the billionaire had narrowed his complaints to only three specific statements the publication made that they believe either accuse Snyder of criminal conduct and damage his reputation.