This is definitely not my area, but … First, this is really 2 cases. In the first one, which we have been discussing for a year, Disney needs to show that the purpose of the government action was retaliation, not a legitimate state interest. And given the pretty strong record here, I think they have a strong case. I mean, they passed the legislation revoking Reedy Creek in an emergency session with no debate, study, or input from citizens. HOWEVER, what concerns me is that long afterwards, the State met again and discussed/debated the manner in which to revoke Reedy Creek, and voted to establish what we now know to be the puppet Reedy Regime(filled with experts like a mom who speaks out against homosexuality). My concern is that the Court will find the State action the second time around to be a legitimate state action, even if the initial action was unlawful. The second case is over Disney’s poison pill actions, to wit, whether Disney’s agreements that granted them the same rights through contract (including the restrictive covenants), are lawful. If they are — and it certainly appears from what I’ve read that Disney met the necessary notices and conditions precedent — then the State’s revocation of those contracts would be deemed an illegal “taking” by the government. The government cannot take private property (and a contract is a property right) without just compensation and need. There obviously is no compensation given to Disney for the taking, and no need demonstrated by Florida. On the other hand, if the Court finds the contracts to be unenforceable due to either (a) the absence of conditions precedent to enter into the agreement, or (b) the agreement should be void against public policy (and this itself is really tricky when dealing with a takings case because of the very question of what really violates public policy — and yes, Florida allows restrictive covenants so those re not per se against public policy); or (c) there was no lawful consideration for the contracts (that’s likely one of the reasons Disney keeps shouting about their anticipated billions of dollars of future investments, amongst other things). As for discovery, I don’t think the Judge is going to allow 10 months of discovery. The legion of public statements by DeSantis and his cronies in Tallahassee speak for themselves. Most of the case here concerns matters of law; the facts are not really in serious dispute. But who knows what the Parties assert and what they want in terms of discovery.
One thing the new oversight board does have control over is transportation. They are now in charge of performing safety inspections on the monorail and the skyliner systems. Not sure if they would abuse that power but I wouldn't put it past them to make it inconvenient for visitors.
They’ve already intimated they would do just that in their ride inspections. They have no interest in being fair to Disney in any issue. They are at War.
You know, all of my logic tells me that this horrible criminal impulse has no partisan valence. But damn, does it seem like it does, at least among public reports. Not saying I would let my guard down if I had young children around those of any political persuasion; logic still tells me it could come from anywhere; I don’t need to be reminded that priests have been culprits. But I started bookmarking tweets, more to have to defend charges like those from the idiot on this thread that it was liberals. Maybe it is just that primarily follow liberals. but here are some I have saved over the years And then there’s this Leftist feed, named Antifa operative, which collects news story on those arrested. Their partisan affiliation is not listed, but demographically they are more likely from the Right. The last 3, there are plenty of others
I think the opposite is the case, personally. The first bill is harder to attack (because it targets multiple special districts, IIRC) than the second (which targets only Disney).
But Fine, the bill’s sponsor, is on record that the Bill is targeting Disney. He made that point clearly and repeatedly.
The challenge is the First Amendment precedents. Under 11th Circuit and SCOTUS precedent, a generally applicable law that is constitutional on its face can't be attacked under the First Amendment on the basis of retaliatory motive. However, a law that singles out a person or organization can be attacked on those grounds. The challenge for Disney in attacking the first bill is that they'll have to show that it's not generally applicable (if they're conceding that it's constitutional on its face). The second bill is easier because it singled out Disney. Of course, by attacking both bills, they get the evidence from the first bill in the record, which can be used to support the attack on the second bill.
This is the first, let’s say, “justification” of DeSantis’ actions that makes even the smallest bit of sense to me. Still, I’m with @ajoseph that this defense should fail in court given the many public statements made by DeSantis against Disney, including the asinine floating of opening a prison next to its property. That said, if Disney’s suit does fail, it must be because of the fact that Disney technically wasn’t the only target of this legislation. Though the inclusion of Disney and almost only Disney is pretty damn coincidental. Overall, the state’s actions seem to me to be about as blatant of a first amendment violation as one can find, and if they are upheld, I will wonder if there is any value left in the first amendment.
and health inspections in the kitchens and restaurants. they can materially impact disney's business with subjective decisions
Which one are you considering the first bill? If it is the one that limited/attacked special districts formed before a certain date (want to say 1968). I thought at one time that only applied to Reedy Creek, which I thought was conceded. But looking at it now, six are impacted. Wonder how that fits in that analysis DeSantis signs bill that dissolves Disney’s special district, Reedy Creek First, DeSantis did suggest it was still targeted Before signing the special districts measure, DeSantis also discussed a connection between Disney indicating that it would work to overturn the Parental Rights in Education legislation, called by critics the "Don't Say Gay" bill, and the special districts bill. He said he could not support the company's agenda. "I'm not comfortable having that type of agenda get special treatment in my state," DeSantis said. "So the bill here sets the marker." Fine said it was not retaliatory, but related During a debate earlier in the week, in response to a question from Florida Rep. Carlos Guillermo Smith (D-Orlando), Fine argued that his bill was not retaliation for comments from Disney Chief Executive Officer Bob Chapek, but it was not unrelated either. “When you poke the bear, or you kick the bee’s nest, sometimes issues come out,” Fine said. “And I think when the bee’s nest got kicked, based on a how a guest in our state chose to comport itself, I think what ended up happening is the idea of special districts were taken a look at.” “And people realized that there were 133 special districts that were created before 1968 — 127 of them had updated themselves to be compliant with the state constitution. Six had not,” said Fine. Curious about the "updating" to "compliance". But I am curious whether this structure fits "generally applicable"
This is interesting. Assuming six of them were violating the Florida Constitution, couldn't the state have moved forward on that without passing a new statute?
Yes, the one that applied to multiple special districts. That will be more challenging for Disney. Here's a case that discusses the two precedents (Gwinnett County from the 11CA and O'Brien from SCOTUS) that will likely be dispositive here: In re: Mike Hubbard, No. 13-10281 (11th Cir. 2015) The discussion starts on page 27.
Likely not, but I Wonder if you circumvent the facially constitutional requirement through a takings analysis. There have been some pretty broad definitions of “taking” out there, although it may be a stretch here.
Winsor is in my opinion very wrong on the law creating the Tourism Oversight Board. It undoubtedly singled out Disney. The idea that the difference between constitutional and unconstitutional First Amendment retaliation is mentioning the party's name is the sort of absurd formalism only a lawyer (or judge) could love.
