Federal judge dismisses Disney's lawsuit against DeSantis administration

“It is 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,’” Judge Winsor wrote in his ruling. Put simply, Judge Winsor found that the law giving Mr. DeSantis control of the special tax district was written in a way that — on its face — did not allow Disney to claim retaliation, mostly because Disney was not the only landowner affected.

That seems like an open door to me. To claim that it's not retaliatory because of how the law is written, and ignoring everything said by the governor, feels like the judge didn't read the complaint. (I'd like to read the full opinion, but I'm not gonna give PACER my credit card number.) I would think between the oral and written statements by the governor, and Citizens United, Disney would have a case worth being heard.

I would think between the oral and written statements by the governor, and Citizens United, Disney would have a case worth being heard.

Not when you are a Judge hand picked by Rick Scott, and Confirmed by Trump…

Question now is how tainted the ruiling Federal Appeals Court is by the GOP.

The Sun-Sentinel has the decision on their website. Presumably the Orlando Sentinel does, or will. I scanned it quickly and it seems a part of the decision rested on Disney's inability to show they were harmed, or that they would be harmed, by decisions made by the new Board. The judge also made the point that Disney is not the only landowner impacted by decisions of the new Board.

The District website said there are 24 landowners, including Disney and its wholly-owned affiliates.

I agree with Jeff, I don't how the court can ignore the public statements made by the Governor that basically amounted to, "just wait to see what we do to them."

Ron has a link to the decision on the governor's site:

https://www.flgov.com/2024/...e%20state.

Typically you can find copies of important/popular opinions online for free.

97.5% is basically Disney, the RCID part is basically all the infrastructure and facilities to maintain it.

Its not hard to see the judge and those in power, making up their own reality.

And Disney was not arguing about being harmed, they were arguing about losing control, they were arguing it as a first amendment case.

The district is Disney, but you can Double Speak it because 5% is the state and others.

wahoo skipper:

I scanned it quickly and it seems a part of the decision rested on Disney's inability to show they were harmed...

I'm really armchairing here, of course, but if you've followed media law for as long as I have, especially in the Internet age, you don't have to demonstrate harm. What's typically at stake in a lot of First Amendment cases is the so-called "chilling effect" that discourages exercising free speech, out of concern for retaliation. There are mountains of cases to reference there.

But on page 16 the judge suggests:

But the principle at issue “is founded not only on the difficulty of determining by forensic methods the motives of a collective body, but also on respect for the political process and on simple comity between departments of government.” Hobart, 864 F.2d at 554. Regardless, nothing in Hubbard suggests it is inapplicable when there is significant—or even overwhelming—evidence of illicit motivation.

This seems like some mental gymnastics to me. I don't think that there's any "difficulty" in determining motive. But the idea that Hubbard doesn't suggest inapplicability when the motive is obviously to suppress free speech is kind of nutty. Seems to me that's an unanswered question, and reason enough that the case should be heard.

mental gymnastics to me

3 years Solicitor General of Florida, under Pam Bondi.

Florida first district court of appeal under Rick Scott.

Nominated by Trump, nomination returned, only approved once Manchin voted for him.

Like he would go against Desantis….

I am sure Disney, saw this coming, but the GOP power with the courts, really has been underestimated.

The 11th Circuit of Appeals will be a much better chance at balance, but 6 Trump appointees, 4 Obama, 3 Clinton, 4 under Bushs, 1 under Reagan. And Clarence Thomas is the Circuit Justice.

Dude, why are you italicizing everything?

I'm not nearly as jaded about the judicial system as others.

It was obviously retaliatory. In retribution to Disney speaking out against the government. This is exactly what the first amendment was written to prevent. Retaliation by the government.

so much of the judiciary is corrupt now we can’t even count on them to do the right thing.

italicizing everything?

Sorry on mobile, and it got bumped

so much of the judiciary is corrupt now

I am surprised by the number of Trump appointees who have ruled against him, but this is FL, so I am not the least surprised you can’t call them out on reverse Citizens United.

Also the fact they no longer have any representation on the board, let alone complete control, or even the counties within in it, is a clear harm. Let alone the governors statements about prisons, no approving the monrail, etc, etc.

The only slight solace I have is they will have really angered two whole generations of young people to get into law.

Not sure there are many people who view more attorneys as a good thing.

More judges, not attorneys.

Appeals is always a 3 judge random thing, over the luck of drawing the right initial judge.

Also more means you might get 3 not picked by Trump, and brought up in the Florida GOP swamp.