In a recent ruling, a federal judge appointed by former President Donald Trump dismissed a lawsuit filed by Disney against Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.
The entertainment conglomerate had contested the establishment of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District (CFTOD), a board created by DeSantis to supervise development in areas owned by Disney in Florida.
Disney argued that the formation of the CFTOD infringed upon its First Amendment rights, asserting that the move was punitive in nature. The company has been embroiled in a dispute with DeSantis over several legislative matters. However, Judge Allen Winsor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida in Tallahassee, who was appointed in 2019 by Trump, dismissed Disney's case, as reported by The New York Times.
In its lawsuit, Disney accused DeSantis of leading a "relentless campaign to weaponize government power against Disney in retaliation for expressing a political viewpoint." The company further claimed that DeSantis's actions "now threaten Disney's business operations, jeopardize its economic future in the region and violate its constitutional rights."
The court ruling acknowledged that the establishment of a new board to oversee the area where Disney operates was detrimental to the company. "This change which works to Disney's significant detriment came after Disney publicly criticized another Florida law, the Parental Rights in Education Act. In Disney's view, this timing was no coincidence," the ruling stated.
However, the ruling also noted that Disney lacked standing to sue the Governor or the Secretary. It further stated that Disney's claims against the CFTOD defendants failed on the merits because "when a statute is facially constitutional, a plaintiff cannot bring a free-speech challenge by claiming that the lawmakers who passed it acted with a constitutionally impermissible purpose."
The ruling pointed out that Disney "faces land-use decisions by a board over which it has no control," but added that Disney "has not alleged facts showing that any imminent future appointments will contribute to its harm."
Judge Winsor wrote, "Disney has not alleged any specific actions the new board took (or will take) because of the Governor's alleged control. In fact, Disney has not alleged any specific injury from any board action. Its alleged injury, as discussed above, is its operating under a board it cannot control. That injury would exist whether or not the Governor controlled the board, meaning an injunction precluding the Governor from influencing the board would not redress Disney's asserted injury."
The ruling also affirmed that Florida's legislature, which approved the new board, has the power to do so. "As Disney appropriately acknowledges, the Legislature can determine the structure of Florida's special improvement districts. Disney does not argue that the First Amendment (or anything else) would preclude the Legislature from enacting the challenged laws without a retaliatory motivation," the ruling said.
While Disney claimed it was singled out by the new board, the judge found that "A law either explicitly singles out a specific group or it does not, and the laws here do not."
The judge also noted that Disney "is not the district's only landowner, and other landowners within the district are affected by the same laws."
Jeremy Redfern, DeSantis's spokesman, said in a statement, "The days of Disney controlling its own government and being placed above the law are long gone." He added, "The federal court's decision made it clear that Governor DeSantis was correct: Disney is still just one of many corporations in the state, and they do not have a right to their own special government. In short as long predicted, case dismissed," as reported by CNN.
Despite the ruling, a representative of Disney indicated that the company plans to appeal. "This is an important case with serious implications for the rule of law, and it will not end here," the representative said. "If left unchallenged, this would set a dangerous precedent and give license to states to weaponize their official powers to punish the expression of political viewpoints they disagree with. We are determined to press forward with our case."
Login