Dan Snyder's lawsuit against the Washington City Paper has drawn its fair share of critics, from journalists to the ACLU, but now the petulant 14-year-old fantasy owner — or 45-year-old Washington Redskins owner, whichever — has even drawn the ire of D.C. itself.

Continue reading

The District's attorney general, Irvin B. Nathan, filed a motion yesterday that says, in so many words, that Snyder is wrong in claiming that D.C.'s anti-SLAPP statute, which discourages "strategic lawsuits against public participation," is unconstitutional. "The District takes no position on the merits of any parties’ claims or defenses in the underlying lawsuit," the motion reads, but goes on to request that the District "be permitted to intervene in this case for the limited purpose of defending the validity of the Anti-SLAPP Act."

Moreover, the resolution of plaintiff’s challenge to the validity of the statute could impair the District’s ability to protect its interests.... It is clearly possible that, if the Court rules in favor of plaintiff’s assertions regarding the Anti-SLAPP Act, it would cast grave doubt on the validity of that legislation, and could have a profound impact on the rights of political participants in the District of Columbia who would otherwise seek to invoke the protections of the Anti-SLAPP statute. Such possibility, alone, is sufficient to satisfy this element of the test for mandatory intervention.

Here's the motion in full: DC Motion Intervene Snyder

[WaPo]