A judge dismissed a federal lawsuit Wednesday Disney filed against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and other defendants, alleging he retaliated against the company for publicly criticizing a controversial parental rights law backed by the governor.
Judge Allen Winsor ruled that Disney did not have standing to sue DeSantis and the Florida Department of Commerce secretary for violating his First Amendment rights.
Winsor also ruled that Disney’s claims against members of the board of a special improvement district where the company operates its parks and resorts are “substantially unsuccessful.”
On this point, the judge referred to federal appeals court rulings that hold that if a law is prima facie constitutional, a plaintiff cannot sue on free speech grounds “by alleging that the legislatures that passed it “acted with a constitutionally inadmissible purpose.”
Disney strongly indicated on Wednesday that it would appeal Winsor’s ruling.
Disney had effectively controlled the district board since 1967 until the Florida Legislature significantly changed its structure last year, renaming it the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District. The governor, who called for the change, will now select board members, pending confirmation by the state Senate.
After CFTOD was formed, it voted to scrap a development agreement with Disney that had been approved by its predecessor, the Reedy Creek Improvement District.
Disney had accused the defendants of punishing the company with the board changes after the company denounced a law in 2022 that critics called the “Don’t Say Gay” bill. The legislation restricts discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity in school lessons.
DeSantis touted the law and his fight with Disney during his unsuccessful run for the Republican presidential nomination.
DeSantis and the other defendants had asked the judge to dismiss Disney’s lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court in Tallahassee.
A Disney spokesperson told CNBC on Wednesday: “This is an important case with serious implications for the rule of law, and it will not end here.”
The spokesman also said that if the ruling were not appealed, it would set a dangerous precedent and give states permission to use their official powers as a weapon to punish the expression of political viewpoints with which they disagree.
“We are committed to advancing our case.”
DeSantis’ spokesman Jeremy Redfern said in a statement: “As Governor DeSantis stated when he signed HB 9-B, the corporate empire is over. The days of Disney controlling its own government and being above the law are long gone.”
“The federal court’s decision made it clear that Governor DeSantis was right: Disney is still just one of many companies in the state, and they have no right to their own special government,” Röderfern said. “In short – as long predicted, lawsuit dismissed.”
The ruling does not affect a lawsuit brought by Disney in the US state of Florida that seeks to reverse the CFTOD board’s decision to reverse the company’s development agreement with the board’s predecessor.
In his decision in the federal lawsuit, Winsor said that because Disney sought an injunction in its lawsuit, it “must allege imminent harm” and not that DeSantis has helped it in the past by appointing members to the CFTOD. would have harmed the board.
“And she has not alleged any facts that would demonstrate that impending future appointments would contribute to her harm,” Winsor wrote.
“The analysis might be different if the governor had not yet made appointments,” the judge said. “But as things stand, if this court were to order future appointments, Disney would be faced with the same situation as it is now: operating under the CFTOD board, over which it has no control.”
The judge also wrote that Disney also lacked standing to sue the secretary of the Commerce Department, writing, “Disney struggled to articulate any injuries attributable to the secretary.”
“At best, it is claimed that the secretary’s duties include ‘maintenance.'[ing] “The official list of special districts,” Winsor wrote. “But this list – or the minister’s authority to maintain it – does not affect the authority of the CFTOD respondent.”
Source link
2024-01-31 21:17:10
www.cnbc.com