The Walt Disney Co. accused Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and his allies of engaging in “ongoing constitutional mutiny” for targeting the company over its opposition to a parental rights law dubbed by its opponents the “Don’t Say Gay Bill not”.
In the latest statement in the company’s federal lawsuit against the governor and presidential candidate, Disney’s legal team wrote that DeSantis and his allies “openly reject the fundamental First Amendment rule that a state may not use its official powers to suppress the expression of criminals. violations.” Political views. Consistent with this view, their motion to dismiss rests expressly on the premise that states are free to use the “structure and composition” of representative political institutions as a cudgel against those who express views that are unacceptable is for the ruling party.
“Not only is this premise unsupported by law, it is completely un-American,” they wrote.
Read Disney’s latest briefing from Ron DeSantis and the latest briefing from the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District.
In its lawsuit and later amended complaint, Disney accused DeSantis and other state officials of violating the First Amendment when they tried to restructure a corporate-controlled special district that had controlled Walt Disney World and surrounding properties for 55 years. DeSantis pushed for state legislation giving him the authority to appoint members of the special district board, which has been renamed the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District. County council members are also defendants in the lawsuit against Disney.
Disney’s latest motion asked a judge to reject a request by DeSantis and the new members of the special district committee to dismiss the case. In it, Disney’s legal team argued that the company is “an especially high-profile target of state attacks on free speech,” a company that has the means to hold the state accountable for its wrongdoing. But if the state’s strategy succeeds, Disney certainly won’t be the last company punished for expressing unfavorable views. If the line is not drawn here, there will be no line.”
Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in the 2010 Citizens United case, Disney’s lawyers also said that First Amendment principles apply not only to individuals, but also to corporations. While DeSantis argued that the Disney-controlled special district gave the company special benefits, Disney lawyers argued in the letter that the governor’s retaliation goes beyond his attempt to bring the district under state control. They noted that he “announced that the board could approve the use of land adjacent to Disney for the development of competing ‘theme parks’ or even the construction of a ‘state prison’ – the ‘possibilities are endless.’
A spokesman for the governor did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
DeSantis and other federal defendants have argued that they are immune from Disney’s federal lawsuit.
The governor’s lawyers argued in August that he and another state official, the secretary of the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, do not enforce the laws at issue in the case. The lawyers wrote: “Disney must do more than generalize: It must demonstrate that the state defendants have concrete, formal authority to enforce the challenged laws in order for an injunction against them to be ‘effective.'” They argue that the DeSantis’ power to appoint special district board members and his “perceived control” over their actions are not enough to obtain deference.
But Disney’s legal team disputed this claim of immunity. The company’s legal department wrote: “Courts routinely enforce the Constitution to prohibit states from structuring units of government on an improper basis. If it were otherwise, a state could redraw a city’s boundaries for the express purpose of segregating voters on the basis of race or religion, punishing city voters for electing the governor’s rival for mayor, or a political eliminate party altogether to exclude local government. ‘
The special district board sued Disney in state court, asking a judge to void a series of business development agreements approved by the special district board before the company came under state control.
Source: Deadline
Mary Crossley is an author at “The Fashion Vibes”. She is a seasoned journalist who is dedicated to delivering the latest news to her readers. With a keen sense of what’s important, Mary covers a wide range of topics, from politics to lifestyle and everything in between.
