Why Judge Winsor Dismissed Disney’s DeSantis Lawsuit
In a major blow to The Walt Disney Company in their ongoing battle with Ron DeSantis, a federal judge has dismissed Disney’s lawsuit against the governor.
Disney was suing DeSantis in federal court over the dissolution of the Reedy Creek Improvement District. In their suit, the company argued that DeSantis and his allies had dissolved the special district, which had given Disney governing power over their Central Florida land since 1967, in retaliation for Disney speaking out against Florida’s Parental Rights in Education Bill (which critics have dubbed “Don’t Say Gay”).
DeSantis, Disney argued, was guilty of violating the company’s First Amendment rights.
Ron DeSantis’ 11th Amendment Defense
DeSantis and his allies on the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District (CFTOD) argued that the dissolution of Reedy Creek was about reform, not retaliation, and that Disney did not have a Constitutional right to special treatment.
Additionally, the Florida Governor and his co-defendant, the Secretary of Florida’s Department of Commerce, had argued that they were protected from suit by the 11th Amendment.
Because the alleged acts by the governor were “legislative in nature”, the defense team argued that both DeSantis and his Secretary were protected by the “absolute legislative immunity” that the 11th Amendment provides.
“But first things first. The Court lacks jurisdiction over at least two defendants—the Governor and the Secretary—who are also immune from suit. Although Disney has grabbed headlines by suing the Governor, Disney—like many litigants before it who have challenged Florida’s laws—has no basis for doing so. Neither the Governor nor the Secretary enforces any of the laws at issue, so Disney lacks standing to sue them,” the defense team wrote.
Winsor Rules Disney Lacks Standing Against DeSantis, Merit Against the CFTOD
In today’s ruling, Judge Allen Winsor determined that Ron DeSantis and the Secretary of Commerce were, in fact, protected by the 11th Amendment, and thus, Disney lacked standing to sue both officials. The two officials could not be sued for performing their public duties.
Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, the judge ruled that the claims against the CFTOD also failed on merit. “When a statute is facially constitutional, a plaintiff cannot bring free-speech challenge by claiming that the lawmakers who passed it acted with a constitutionally impermissible purpose,” citing a 2015 federal court ruling.
Disney Failed To Prove DeSantis Controlled the Board
Diving into Disney’s allegations against the governor, Judge Winsor ruled that Disney had failed to prove that the Governor is “exercising actual control over the District Board’s actions” or that the board “operates as a ‘state receivership’ under the ‘Governor’s thumb.'”
Similarly, Judge Winsor ruled that Disney had failed to articulate any injury attributable to the Secretary.
Winsor Rules That The Dissolution of Reedy Creek Was at Least Facially Constitutional
When it came to the CFTOD, Judge Winsor reiterated that it was “settled law” that “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.”
Since the Florida State Legislature can determine the structure of Florida’s special improvement districts, the laws do not “facially ‘impinge on any constitutional rights.'”
While the judge seemed to accept that DeSantis and other lawmakers had publically declared their intent to harm Disney when enacting the new special district laws, Judge Winsor cited the accepted law that “courts shouldn’t look to a law’s legislative history to find illegitimate motivation for an otherwise constitutional statute.”
In short, neither Ron DeSantis nor the Secretary of Commerce could be held liable by Disney for performing their public duties.
The suit against the CFTOD board members was then dismissed on the merit (or lack thereof) of Disney’s suit. In the end, Judge Winsor found that the laws dissolving Reedy Creek and creating the CFTOD were Constitutional at face value.
While Disney is likely to appeal the ruling, and the back and forth between the company and DeSants will continue, today’s ruling is a significant setback for The Walt Disney Company.
Thanks for visiting MickeyBlog.com! Want to go to Disney? For a FREE quote on your next Disney vacation, please fill out the form below, and one of the agents from MickeyTravels, a Diamond Level Authorized Disney Vacation Planner, will be in touch soon! Also, thanks for reading!