Disney sues DeSantis for using government to retaliate against the company

Back to this lawsuit. I don't think it is as clear cut as everyone here makes it.

Who cares what the motivation for the law being passed in Florida? Duly elected government officials passed a law. When does a Corporation have the right to reverse the will of the people’s elected officials. It just has to pass a "rational basis" test regardless of motivation.

In Disneys filing they say they want the law repealed

DeSantis isn't the RDIC board or whatever, they are suing the wrong guy.

In order to be punishing Disney by taking over Reedy Creek, Disney has to admit to The Walt Disney Company and Reedy Creek Improvement District being the same entity, Reedy Creek had no comment about whatever law they are fussing about.

Who called the special session, who’s taken all the credit, who wrote a book where he confessed to being behind it all?

Amusing watching the American Left simultaneously demand large corporations pay "their fair share" while cheering on Disney's efforts to retain control of Reedy Creek and its self governing privileges

Im not the American Left. Im a disgruntled former Republican. Irregardless, the first amendment is the bedrock of our democracy and contract law the bedrock of our economy. These laws go back to the 1780s, no one should be cheering for them to be overturned.

njbill:

Duly elected government officials passed a law.

Dear god, you can't possibly be this obtuse. (Look it up if you don't know what it means.)

Here's an example. Let's suppose that the Michigan legislature passes a law that forbids Michigan residents from owning a gun, and makes the possession of one under any circumstances within the borders of the State a felony. Imagine the Governor signs it. I mean, it could happen--both chambers and the Governor's office are under Democrat control.

So, the duly elected government officials have passed a law. Is that the end of it? Of course not, because that law is unconstitutional--it directly violates the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment, which has more authority than the State (or Federal) legislature. When a legislative body passes a law that violates the constitution, the law is liable to be struck down in the courts.

Disney's claim is that Florida passed these laws to punish the Company for taking a political position that the State disagrees with. If Disney is correct, then this is a violation of the First Amendment ("...shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech") The Supreme Court has previously ruled that corporations have free speech rights akin to those of individuals (the "Citizens United" ruling). So, if Disney's contention is correct, these laws are unconstitutional, and would be struck down by the court system.

You aren't hanging out with your hometown buddies on Facebook or talking too loudly after the fourth round at the bar. There are adults here. And, once again, I find myself wishing that CoasterBuzz had an ignore feature, because you'd be on my list.

njbill:

Note the ".Gov" in the link I posted.

Hahahaha for real? It's a press release issued by the Judiciary Committee which is led by... wait for it... Jim Jordan. He's obsessed with the president's son and his computer, and he can't even tell you why.

I mean, you're all up in arms about Covid conspiracies, but you probably don't believe anything on www.cdc.gov. I mean, note the ".gov" in the link I posted.

It just has to pass a "rational basis" test regardless of motivation.

Rational basis test only applies in terms of a constitutional challenge if no fundamental rights are involved. If there are fundamental rights at issue (such as First Amendment) test is strict scrutiny. Much different standard.

https://www.law.cornell.edu...t%20issue.

1A claim may not be a strong as you think. I believe there is case law stating that WDW has to prove they were singled out ONLY because of their woke nonsense and the state has no other compelling reason for dissolving RCID.

Its kind of tough to sue the legislature for legislating.

Disney may not even have standing since they themselves have taken the position Reedy Creek is not Disney

What is rock solid is their contract law case though. Govts can not void contracts they willingly entered into ip post facto. Even if the 1st A arguments fail (and I’m inclined to believe they win that too) their Feb contract will likely be deemed valid and binding, accomplishing the same thing.

billb7581:

Its kind of tough to sue the legislature for legislating.

Not when its leaders, who set the agenda, call out that it's to punish Disney. And the legislature itself is not a defendant anyway, but they are asking to have the law ruled unconstitutional.

Good God, njbill. You are in over your head. Just give it up. As one example, you quote the lawsuit Disney filed and their comments around HB 1557 - the don't say gay bill - but your comments indicate you believe Disney is talking about the Reddy Creek legislation in that particular passage of the lawsuit.

Such a perfect example of Trump-ism.

I enjoy a debate with people of varying perspectives but people like you who can't even get the most basic of facts right and live in alternate realities - are tiring at best and a threat to our democracy at worst.

The bizarre consolidation of power continues with a municipal utility takeover. Meanwhile, at New College, the Desantis regime denied faculty tenure for no obvious reason, and another member quit.

Remember, this is a state with a broken system for homeowners insurance and a ton of pending environmental disasters. But this is what the state leadership concerns itself with.

Jeff, can you elaborate on the homeowners insurance issue? That hits close to home, because we just renewed ours here and had to kick Progressive/ASI to the curb after they hiked rates to astronomical levels. Thankfully Statefarm came through for us, but ugh, there aren’t a lot of options these days.

This recent article explains some of it, but the thing making it worse is that the state insists on having a single ratings agency rate the insurers, and they do a pretty crappy job of it. Banks require a certain rating for the insurer. The thing is, that company can rate whomever they want, or decline to work with a new company. They're essentially a gatekeeper to who can play in the state. Mind you, a lot of companies don't want to play here anyway because of the weather and the fraud problem, but certainly less competition is bad for everyone. A state consultant was supposed to issue recommendations for alternatives in January, but I don't recall ever hearing about it.

Fixing insurance isn't a sexy topic for courting primary voters in Iowa or South Carolina.

The municipal takeover is alarming. It also looks politically motivated. The Gainesville utility is pushing to be the first electric utility to be 100% renewable in the state. That doesn't fit the Republican narrative. But, if the accusations of mismanagement are true then there may be cause. What a mess.

Locally controlled utilities are more often than not a better option. This is especially true with cable/Internet plants, which the lobbyists have tried desperately to outlaw at the federal and state level.

Touchdown:

What is rock solid is their contract law case though. Govts can not void contracts they willingly entered into ip post facto.

Reedy Creek was created by statute. One that included a clause that the legislature can opt out at any point, is my understanding.

"The obligations of a contract long have been regarded as including not only the express terms, but also the contemporaneous state law pertaining to interpretation and enforcement." US Trust v New Jersey (1977).

The contract includes the revocation power as a term.

What Disney is doing here, would be like suing your HOA in FEDERAL court. States have varying laws regarding real property and I dont think the feds would want to get invovled here.

No lawyer here, just a union steward and devils advocate.

Jeff:
Not when its leaders, who set the agenda, call out that it's to punish Disney. And the legislature itself is not a defendant anyway, but they are asking to have the law ruled unconstitutional.

I don't see how Disney gets around US v O'Brien on legislative motive.

"this Court will not strike down an otherwise constitutional statute on the basis of an alleged illicit legislative motive"

TWDC would have to prove their woke business is the sole motive for the move and that there is no other compelling reason. If a law is constitutional on its face, courts have limited purview to go poking around as to why the law was passed.

Kennsington Volunteer FD V Montgomery County

4th circuit held that when the government enacts legislation that is "facially valid" (i.e., that does not itself contain a speech restriction), courts are powerless to inquire into the motive of the statute, citing the O'Brien case