Ron DeSantis’ latest move against Disney BACKFIRES instantly
by Dina Sayegh Doll
MeidasTouch
Apr 27, 2023
Disney sued Gov. Ron DeSantis just minutes after the expected the flailing governor's handpicked board declared a Disney-friendly deal null and void. Legal analyst Dina Doll reports.
Transcript
Disney has filed lawsuit against Ron
DeSantis, saying it is being forced to
defend itself against quote "a state
weaponizing its power to inflict
political punishment. My name is Dina
Sayegh Doll from Meidas Touch Network. Let's
break this down. They are filing this
lawsuit against Ron DeSantis, several
other Florida officials in their
official capacity, as well as the members
newly appointed to the special tax
District. They are saying that this is
unconstitutional, the fact that the new
district has actually even been created,
that the House and Senate bill that passed
that changed the appointed power from
to the governor, was unconstitutional,
as well as the fact that this newly
appointed district is trying to void
the development agreement that was
passed in public hearings by the old
board, that voiding is also
unconstitutional they say under the
contracts Clause of the Constitution, the
takings clause also of the Constitution,
due process clause, and the First
Amendment.
So let's break this down. Now
early on in the complaint, Disney says
this sentence. They say, "In America, the
government cannot punish you for
speaking your mind." And this case will be
a good example to note, is that still
true? Is that concept actually a reality?
This case has been assigned to Justice
Walker. He's the Chief Justice in federal
Northern District in Florida, the
district that is overseeing this case. He
was appointed by President Obama back in
2012. So it seems like we will have a
reasonable judge looking at this,
as well as somebody highly experienced,
him being the Chief Justice there. So
Disney may have a fair shake here, and we
will be able to see, we saw with the
Dominion case, that defamation is being
upheld, that you can't just
say anything. And we're gonna see here
what actually is the restraint on
government we are willing to enforce
here in America.
So let's take a look a
little bit at this complaint. One of
the best things about this complaint is
that Disney uses Governor Desantis's own
words against him, time and time again,
Because in order for the district to be
validly appointed, and in order for
contracts to be validly voided, you need
a valid legislative purpose. We
have restrictions that restrict what a
government can do, how much a
government can take away from a private
person, or a private entity. There are
these constitutional protections that
are balanced against whether or not you
have a valid legislative purpose. And
Disney in their complaint show, by
Governor Desantis's own words, how much
of a pretext he later says, if he has
a legislative purpose, because he says,
over and over, in speeches, and in his
Memoir, how much of this was in
retaliation to what he calls a "Woke
Corporation" daring to influence a
legislative action.
Now let's go back and
look at actually what is it that Disney
said that made this become such a big
thing for DeSantis, that made him say
that they needed to be reined in, that
they were unduly influencing the
political process? Disney has
quoted in their
complaint exactly what it was that they
said at the time. And let me read it to
you, because it's been a little while
maybe since we've heard it. They said, "To
all who come to this happy place, welcome.
Disney Parks, Experiences and products, is
committed to creating experiences that
support family values for every family,
and will not stand for discrimination in
any form. We oppose any legislation that
infringes on basic human rights, and
stand in solidarity and support our
lgbtqia+ Cast, Crew, and Imagineers and
fans who make their voices heard today
and every day."
It is this statement, and this sentiment,
that Governor DeSantis
says was so
outlandish, was so somehow
interfering, that he had to take all
these legislative actions.
So that in itself is going to be, I think,
really difficult. I mean it's clearly a
First Amendment protected statement. But
Disney goes on and talks about
each of the actions.
So let's break down
each of these actions, in
particular. So the first cause of action
that they have against him, and I'm
going to kind of read from the complaint
so you can see for yourself here. The
first cause of action is the contracts
Clause violation that we have in the
Constitution. And it says, "the contracts
Clause prohibits local government
entities from abrogating their own
contracts with private entities." So we
have here that the special tax District
had a development agreement, and these
restrictive covenants, with Disney. Disney
is the private company. the local entity.
the public entity is the special tax
district. And so this new tax
District can't just go and cancel the
contracts, because it was validly entered
into by this government entity. Because
you need fairness, right? You need
fairness in government. You don't want
the power, an overreach,
essentially, of the power of the government.
That's why we have that contract
Constitutional provision. And that
is what
Disney is saying as their first cause of
action, is why they can't void the
contracts. That's what Disney's saying.
They can't void the
contracts because of the contracts
Clause.
The second cause of action is
saying that the new District cannot void
the contracts because of the taking
clause in our Constitution, which
essentially says, and I will go ahead and
read what it says on here too. It says,
"The legislative declaration takes
Disney's property without providing just
compensation in violation of the
takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment
to the U.S Constitution. The takings
Clause provides: '[N]or shall private
property be taken for public use without
just compensation." And the idea here is
that when
Desantis's appointed members decided to
void the contracts,
they can't do that because at that point
they are taking away the property rights
from Disney. And Disney is arguing here
that the contracts themselves are
property rights, because they secure
substantial rights and property.
Contracts are not always considered
property under the law, but in this case
Disney is arguing they should be, because
they secure substantial property rights.
So that's their second cause of action,
for why the contracts cannot be voided
by the new board.
And their
third cause of action here is the due
process clause, that essentially that the
way they did it violated the due
process of Disney because it was
arbitrary, it was
arbitrary because, again, there was this
pretext. There wasn't actually a
legislative purpose. They did it to
retaliate against that public statement
that Disney made. So their
trying to void the
contracts is a violation of the due
process. And specifically what they have
in their pleading, it says: "The
legislative declaration abrogates the
contracts without any rational basis and
for only impermissible reasons, in
violation of the due process clause of
the 14th Amendment to the U.S
Constitution."
So essentially, again, all of
Desantis's words, him talking about how
Florida will not be influenced
by this "Woke Corporation" out of
California, it makes it very clear that
there wasn't a legislative purpose for
it. And even in DeSantis's own Memoir he
talks about how they look into all these
other Special Districts, but it was only
after looking into the districts that
they even saw anything. That it was
really all in retaliation to
Disney's statement, and for them to be
punished.
Okay, so the fourth cause of action has
to do with their, the fourth and fifth
both have to do with their freedom of
speech. And their freedom of speech is
them saying that they shouldn't be
voiding the contract -- that's the fourth
cause of action. And the fifth one is
that they actually shouldn't have even
passed the bill allowing DeSantis to
appoint the members to the special
district. And so Disney here is not
just asking the court to allow the
development agreement, and the
restrictive covenant to stand, they are
actually saying that the appointment of
this new board by the governor is in
itself also unconstitutional, because it
is a violation of their freedom of
speech. And they're asking that the court
declare that bill also to be
unconstitutional.
So the fourth cause,
just to kind of read what they say, it
says: "Disney's public statements on House
Bill 1557 are fully
protected by the First Amendment which
applies with particular Force to
political speech.
Speech such as Disney's, on public issues
and petitions to the government, 'occup[y]
the core of the protection afforded by
the First Amendment." And the newly
appointed board's "retaliatory
interference with the contracts, via the
legislative declaration and its
predicates, has chilled and continues to
chill Disney's protected speech."
And in
the fifth cause of action, again, also
regarding Free Speech, but this is saying
that the house bill is in violation says, "As
discussed, Disney's public statements on
HB 1557 are fully protected by the
First Amendment which applies with
particular force tp political speech.
The retaliatory reconstitution of
Disney's governing body's
structure through the enactments of
Senate Bill 4C and House Bill 9B
have chilled and continued to chill
Disney's protected speech. And
specifically you can see, in their
prayer for relief,
they want the Court to declare that the
Senate Bill 4C and House Bill 9B
are unlawful and unenforceable because
they were passed in retaliation for
Disney's political speech in violation
of the First Amendment.
So Disney here is
striking back in a big way. They are not
only asking for their contracts to
remain valid, and not be voided as the
new governor DeSantis board is trying
to do, but they are actually trying to
say that the bill that allowed DeSantis
to appoint the members to that board,
instead of Disney being the largest
landowner appointing the members to the
board, is also unconstitutional. So Disney
is not only backing down, but they are
taking a large step forward against this
to try to say -- and I think in a very
powerful way -- that the actions of
DeSantis were unconstitutional.