Walt Disney Parks and Resorts has failed in its attempt to reverse the loss of its special district when a federal judge on Jan. 31 struck down its First Amendment lawsuit against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.
U.S. District Court Judge Allen Winsor dismissed the case on the basis that Disney’s suit had no standing and lacked sufficient merit.
“In short, Disney lacks standing to sue the governor or the secretary, and its claims against the CFTOD defendants 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.’”
Beginning in 1967, the Walt Disney Company held dominating control over a landmass roughly the size of San Francisco in Central Florida called the Reedy Creek Improvement District.
However, that autonomy came to an end after the company decided to speak out against Florida’s Parental Rights in Education Law and threatened to do what it could to have the legislation overturned.
Shortly thereafter, the Florida Legislature, with the support of Mr. DeSantis, passed HB-9B in February 2023, which transformed Reedy Creek into a state-controlled CFTOD, which featured a board selected by the governor and approved by the state Senate.
“I’m delighted that this lawsuit, which was nothing more than a distraction, is now behind us,” said CFTOD Chairman Martin Garcia.
“Our board and the district will now continue to make the appropriate changes to operate and function as an independent government agency to promote transparency and accountability while bringing more prosperity to more people in Florida.”
While the judge noted, “Disney’s loss of control is enough to constitute a constitutional injury. And that injury is clearly traceable to the board that now makes land-use decisions affecting Disney,” he also found that Disney lacked any standing to sue the governor of Florida on the bases that he has “actual control” over the CFTOD board or that he has the power to appoint board members.
“Because Disney seeks injunctive relief, it must allege an imminent future injury,” he wrote, “and it has not alleged facts showing that any imminent future appointments will contribute to its harm.”
He also pointed out that Disney did not allege any specific action the new board took or will take due to the governor’s alleged control.
“It’s alleged injury,” he writes of Disney, “is it’s operating under a board it cannot control.”
On grounds of First Amendment violations, Judge Winsor cited a previous case and said “it is settled law” that a free-speech challenge cannot be made when a statute is “constitutional on its face.”
That precedent has been upheld by the Eleventh Circuit several times and “forecloses Disney’s claim.”
Disney tried to argue for an exemption to that that it was singled out, but the judge struck down that claim, pointing out that other landowners existed within the district’s boundaries.
At the end of the day, he wrote, courts should not look to the legislative history of a law to “find an illegitimate motivation for an otherwise constitutional statute.”
“This case was resolved on motions to dismiss,“ he officially ruled in his conclusion. ”Plaintiff’s claims against the governor and the department secretary are dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
“Plaintiff’s claims against the CFTOD board members are dismissed on the merits for failure to state a claim.”
“The days of Disney controlling its own government and being placed above the law are long gone.
“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.”
