Judge dismisses Disney’s lawsuit against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and his allies

The judge’s ruling is a win for the governor’s escalating legal battle with the entertainment giant.

The lawsuit, which was filed by Walt Disney Parks and Resorts in April, accused DeSantis of weaponizing his political power to punish the company for exercising its right to free speech.

However, on Wednesday, a federal judge in Florida ruled that Disney lacked standing to sue DeSantis and that the company’s claims against the governor’s oversight board fail on merit.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/31/business/judge-dismisses-disneys-lawsuit-against-desantis/index.html

Bummer for disney. They should be more careful how they use their funds and avoid public fights that alienate many of its customers.

 

Fascinating, so the state can now retaliate against private companies for speech they don’t like.

Looks like republicans have abandoned yet another “value”. Surprising no one.

A much needed win for puss in boots after his humiliating presidential aspirations were dashed into the rocks. I am glad he is contained to Florida.

 

Do you disagree with the federal judge's decision?

 

It's interesting watching all the "corporations aren't people!!" supporters getting upset in these Disney threads about a corporation's "free speech" rights. Perhaps they should think of this as DEI. Groomers are over-represented in the children's entertainment industry.

 

Legislatures alter laws all the time due to support or opposition of ideas. That's kind of the entire point of a legislature in the first place.

 

Allen Winsor is a Trump judge. See how that works?

 

For those who may not fully understand the ruling, here's the background.

1. Florida created a district called Reedy Creek Improvement that had special governing powers for the landowners within the district. There is a board that governs the district for all land owners. Disney being the largest land owner in Reedy Creek has had unilateral control of the board since its inception.
2. Disney politically protested an education parental rights bill.
3. Florida amended the law that set up Reedy Creek by changing the way the board is comprised. The governor nominates and the Senate confirms the members, like most government appointments.
4. Disney no longer controls the board and thus no longer has its own fiefdom inside of Florida.
5. Disney sued DeSantis personally, the Secretary of the Department of Commerce, and each member of the newly appointed board.
6. Disney has no legal standing whatsoever to sue DeSantis or the Secretary of the DoC. So that was basically dropped out of the gate as being ridiculous. So that just leaves suing the individual board members.
7. The judge followed the precedent that when a statute is constitutional, a plaintiff cannot bring a free-speech challenge by claiming the lawmakers did it for impermissible purposes. The SCOTUS also ruled that the courts can't start trying to establish motive about why constitutional laws are passed because that's a slippery slope on the separation of powers. In other words, the legislature is allowed to change laws even if it hurts some people and helps others. You don't get to sue because you don't like it. Otherwise, I would have sued Donald Trump for raising my taxes so heavily.
8. Disney admitted that the Florida legislature can determine the laws for the Reedy Creek district. They knew that was a losing battle, which is why they tried suing the individuals. It was a hail mary and it missed by a mile.
9. Disney said if you ignore the clear precedent (Hubbard 11th Cir 2015) in this case, the courts get involved in legislation when the laws directly violate the constitution. But, this bill doesn't directly say no Christians can go to Reedy Creek. It has nothing to do with a protected class. And it is in no way unconstitutional just like the bill that set up how the board was initially comprised wasn't unconstitutional either. The new statute just changes the way the board is comprised. So this argument was dismissed.
10. Disney admits this wasn't a bill of attainder, but wants it to be treated like one anyway, lol. Judge said no.
11. To try to get around Hubbard, Disney cited a case where the courts struck down a law. But that exact case was mentioned in Hubbard, who said it was an exception because the law was unconstitutional on its face notwithstanding any other legal challenge. Ie- if the law is unconstitutional based on the text, it can be struck down if challenged. This is kind of a no brainer. But, if someone says they feel targeted or they feel harmed by a law, they can't just strike down the law or they'd be doing that all day long.
12. Disney admits that the law doesn't specifically target only them, but wants the judge to make a ruling as if it does, again.. lol.
13. Disney then literally told the judge to ignore what the law says and make a ruling in their favor because they're special. Are we all still laughing? I am.

The precedent is clear. Courts can't look into legislative history to try to find bad motives for a constitutional law. Legislatures are allowed to pass laws, even if it hurts a business. When all these appeals are finally sorted it will not go in Disney's favor.

 

A win for reason and rationale.

Disney is garbage as are the humans who run it.

 

Bow down to govt and say nothing to trigger them….but liberals are the commies lol

 

Owning the libs is the most important value

 

Exactamundo, QN...
Trump Judge (Member of Federalist Society)...
Totally in the tank for Ron D.

 

Do you think our court system carries political bias?

 

Do you not agree with the federal judges ruling ?

 

Why do you say that?

 

In Florida for sure.

 

I don't agree with the ruling.

 

Looks like the mouse fell into DeSantis’…trap.

 

I accept the ruling. I wrote my post to point out the double standard of Trump supporters, who immediately cry deep state, legal system weaponization, Soros judge, lawfare... if a ruling doesn't go in their favor.

 

Seems that is all they see and seek.

 

Disney should also understand the axiom, "The Lord (State) giveth and the Lord (State) taketh away."

 

Nope, Never was a free speech issue. This is the result of a theme park sticking its woke ideology nose where it doesn't belong. Threatening legislators to change laws Disney doesn't like, because they don't fit their woke agenda, or face a barrage of litigations costing taxpayers millions to defend.

But like most liberal run ideologies, they have to learn the hard way. Which is why Disney lost HUGE. Even their own stockholders refused to support this idiocy which is why they bailed tanking Disney stock loses went from $197 in 2021 to todays price of $96. Losing billions in value.

More like woke Liberals having temper tantrums using Republicans as an excuse when they don't get their way.
But Liberals never take responsibility for their own actions so no surprise here.

 

Or maybe woke ideology theme parks that have no roll in legislation shouldn't threaten legislators to change laws to fit their woke ideologies.

 

You can try to twist this as much as needed — but the fact remains, the state punished a private company due to their speech. And you support that because you don’t like them.

The end

 

Id love to hear what these threats were…

 

So you didn't know Disney threatened DeSantis and legislators to remove the parental rights act or Disney would spend millions to have it reversed?
I bet you thought DeSantis just woke up one morning and thought, Hey, we should just go to war with Disney for no reason at all. lol