A judge on Wednesday dismissed a federal lawsuit Disney filed against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and other defendants that alleged he retaliated against the company for publicly criticizing a controversial parental rights education law backed by the governor. Judge Allen Winsor ruled that Disney lacked legal standing to sue DeSantis and the secretary of Florida’s Commerce Department. Winsor also ruled that Disney’s claims “fail on the merits” against members of the board of a special improvement district in which the company operates its park and resort. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/31/judge-dismisses-disney-lawsuit-against-florida-gov-ron-desantis-alleging-retaliation.html#:~:text=A federal judge on Wednesday,law backed by the governor.
I’ll admit it, I am stunned. Horrible for the concept of freedom of speech. Disney Lawsuit Against Ron DeSantis Dismissed by Federal Judge I am very interested in reading the reasoning.
this isn't disney vs reedy creek. I am still shocked, after the judges ruling on the prosecutor, that this case was dismissed. it feels like leverage must have been applied. perhaps this one was dismissed and the merits of the argument will be leveled in the other case Winsor’s ruling does not affect a parallel state lawsuit between Disney and DeSantis allies, which is ongoing.
Let's remember this when people say that the Department of Justice is just a wing of Biden's Democratic Party.
As Yogi Berra used to say "it ain't over till it's over". From the original linked article. Followers of the former president should be aware that appeals of adverse trial court decisions are almost the norm and Disney has the deep pockets and legal talent to pursue the almost certain appeal. Kind of like proclaiming victory at the end of the first half of a football game.
These tweets are part of a larger confusion which conflates two separate issues of the situation: 1) should the government be able to commandeer Reedy Creek based on Disney taking a political position? And 2) should Disney have had Reedy Creek in the first place. The concerns stem entirely from issue 2 and have nothing to do with issue 1.
I would also add and this has been mentioned in the other thread, Reedy Creek is not the only special district in Florida and that the creation of the special district has relieved the taxpayers of Orange and Seminole Counties from building and maintaining infrastructure within the district as well a number of other governmental functions.
Bad ruling. The line Winsor draws on the second bill isn't a logical one. His rationale is basically that it would be unconstitutional retaliation if the legislation said Disney, but because it said Randy Creek, it's fine. As I said in another thread, the sort of absurd formalism only a lawyer or judge could love.
Aren't Reedy Creek and Disney supposed to be separate entities? My understanding is that they are legally required to keep a certain amount of separation. If the courts had found that the difference between Reedy Creek and Disney was mere formality wouldn't that be a problem?
It's irrelevant if they're separate entities. Everybody knew Disney controlled Randy Creek. And the express focus of putting a board of DeSantis's appointees in charge there was to take control away from Disney to punish it for its protected speech and allow DeSantis's allies to "monitor" Disney to make sure it didn't speak out again. Saying "it's only First Amendment retaliation if they say this very specific magic word in the legislation" is an absurd rule.
So, just to clarify, are you saying that Disney/Reedy Creek weren't involved in anything illegal(I forget the legal term. Collusion doesn't sound right.) or are you saying that it doesn't matter if they were doing something illegal? Or is there a third option that I missed?
I don't understand why it wouldn't be relevant. If Disney was doing something illegal, does the state of Florida have to wait until someone who doesn't have an axe to grind against them gets elected before Disney can be made to pay for their misconduct?
Neither the legislators nor the Governor claimed to be doing this because Disney was engaging in some sort of illegal behavior. They were very clear as to why they were punishing Disney. The issue here is whether the court can properly consider motivation. If it can, the government loses (because the post-hoc justification you're trying to create is directly disproven by contemporaneous evidence). If it can't, the government wins.
Did Disney's federal suit ask for DeSantis to be removed from office/punished or did it ask for all of their "illegal" deals/relationships to be reinstated? Assuming there were illegalities, should those deal/relationships be reinstated?
