Re: Judge rejects Disney's federal lawsuit against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis

[Clean up your business Disney]

On 24 Feb 2022, Trump Is A RUSSIAN ASSET <jth...@gmail.com> posted some
news:sv80dm$1o7k2$3...@news.freedyn.de:

> Disney is about to learn a potentially business ending lesson. Keep
> your opinions to yourself. Poisonous petty internal social agendas
> don't belong in publicly offered products and services. Budweiser,
> Target, Kohls, IBM, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, and every university
> in North America should take note and wise up. Specifically Harvard
> should get their disgraceful act together.

A judge has dismissed Disney's First Amendment federal lawsuit against
Gov. Ron DeSantis and others, a decision that could have big
implications on corporate speech, especially when it's directed at
governments who can punish it.

DeSantis, with the help of GOP lawmakers, stripped Disney's control of
its special taxing district and gave it to himself. The company
eventually sued him and that district's new leadership in federal court,
saying it was retribution for its public opposition to a state law,
called "Don't Say Gay" by critics, which restricts classroom instruction
on gender identity and sexual orientation. That punishment of its speech
violates the First Amendment, Disney said.

But U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor threw out the lawsuit on Wednesday,
a move Disney is likely to appeal.

“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," the company said in a statement
provided to POLITICO.

Winsor, appointed by former President Donald Trump, cited a lack of
standing in dismissing the claims against DeSantis and Alex Kelly, the
Florida Department of Commerce secretary. Standing refers to whether
someone has the right to sue another.

"To extent the Governor contributed to Disney’s injury by appointing
CFTOD board members, that action is in the past," Winsor wrote. "Because
Disney seeks injunctive relief, it must allege an imminent future
injury."

He said the claims against district leadership "are dismissed on the
merits for failure to state a claim."

"Its claims ... fail 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,'” Winsor wrote, citing a 2015 appellate decision.

The state had argued in court and legal filings that it didn't matter if
the action was retaliatory, citing the same decision. That had stemmed
from a lawsuit filed by the Alabama Education Association, alleging that
lawmakers had retaliated against it by passing a law that banned payroll
deductions for membership dues in organizations that used "any portion
of those contributions for political activity.

Their argument, which Winsor agreed with, is that if a law is
constitutional on its face, it doesn’t matter if it was created for
retaliatory reasons.

"No one reading the text of the challenged laws would suppose them
directed against Disney," Winsor wrote. "At the end of the day, under
the law of this Circuit, 'courts shouldn’t look to a law’s legislative
history to find an illegitimate motivation for an otherwise
constitutional statute.'”

Winsor wrote that it was true that Disney "faces the brunt of the harm"
from the law.

"But Disney offers no support for its argument that the court is to
undertake line drawing to determine just how many others a law must
cover to avoid 'singling out' those they affect most," Winsor said.

The district leadership included members of the Central Florida Tourism
Oversight District, which was called the Reedy Creek Improvement
District before the takeover, as well as District Administrator Glen
Gilzean Jr.

They've already made a lot of changes, some of them controversial, like
abolishing the district's diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

Jeremy Redfern, press secretary for DeSantis, applauded the decision.

"The days of Disney controlling its own government and being placed
above the law are long gone," he said in a statement. "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."

Disney, meanwhile, has previously warned in filings that a courtroom win
for DeSantis would open up the floodgates for speech suppression.

"If the State’s strategy succeeds, Disney will assuredly not be the last
entity punished for espousing disfavored viewpoints," the company wrote.

This reporting content is supported by a partnership with Freedom Forum
and Journalism Funding Partners. USA Today Network-Florida First
Amendment reporter Douglas Soule is based in Tallahassee, Fla. He can be
reached at DSo...@gannett.com. On X: @DouglasSoule.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/01/31/judge-rejects-dis
ney-federal-lawsuit-ron-desantis/72426319007/