According to Deadline, the Walt Disney Company accused Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and his allies of being engaged in “ongoing constitutional mutiny” with them targeting its opposition to the parental rights bill.
What’s Happening:
- The Walt Disney Company has accused Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and his allies of being engaged in “ongoing constitutional mutiny” targeting them over the opposition to the “don’t say gay” bill.
- In the latest filing, Disney’s legal team wrote that DeSantis and his allies “openly reject the foundational First Amendment rule that a state cannot deploy its official powers to punish the expression of disfavored political viewpoints. Consistent with that outlook, their motion to dismiss rests explicitly on the premise that states are free to wield the structure and composition of representative political institutions as cudgels against those who express opinions not acceptable to the ruling party.”
- They wrote, that premise is not just legally unsupported; it is profoundly un-American,”
- According to the lawsuit, “Disney accused DeSantis and other state officials of violating the First Amendment when they moved to restructure a company-controlled special district that has governed Walt Disney World and surrounding properties for 55 years.”
- DeSantis had the power to nominate members of the special district, renamed the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District.
- In Disney's latest filing, they asked the judge to reject the motion from DeSantis as well as the new special district board members to have the case dismissed.
- Disney's legal team argued that the company was “an especially prominent target of the state’s attacks on free speech, one with the resources to hold the state accountable for its wrongdoing. But if the state’s strategy succeeds, Disney will assuredly not be the last entity punished for espousing disfavored viewpoints. If the line is not drawn here, there is no line at all.”
- Disney’s attorneys also said “that First Amendment principles apply not just to individuals but to businesses. While DeSantis has argued that the Disney-controlled special district gave the company special favors, Disney’s attorneys argued in the brief that the governor’s retaliation went beyond his effort to put the district under the state control.”
- They stated that he “announced that the board might approve use of Disney-adjacent property for development of rival ‘amusement parks’ or even construction of a state prison; the possibilities are endless.
- DeSantis and other state defendants have claimed that they have been immune from Disney’s federal lawsuit.
- The governor's attorney wrote, “Disney must do more than generalize: It must show that the state defendants have specific, formal power to enforce the challenged laws, such that an injunction against them would ‘be effectual.”
- They said that DeSantis’ power to appoint board members to the special district and his “purported control”.
- Disney's legal team has challenged that claim of immunity.
- Disney’s legal team stated that “courts routinely enforce the Constitution to prohibit states from structuring government entities on impermissible bases. Were it otherwise, a state could redraw a city’s boundaries for the explicitly stated purposes of segregating voters by race or religion, or punishing city voters for electing the Governor’s rival as mayor, or wholly excluding one political party from local governance.”
- The board of the special district sued Disney in state court and asked the judge to “find that a set of company development agreements –approved by the special district board before it came under state control — were null and void.”