News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

JohnD

JohnD

Well-Known Member
flynnibus said:
I think you missed where he said

" 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.” In re Hubbard, 803 F.3d 1298, 1312 (11th Cir. 2015). "

He basically shutdown Disney's claims of retaliation purely on the Hubbard case.
Click to expand...
I saw that part. It also said "Plaintiff’s claims against the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District board members are dismissed on the merits for failure to state a claim."

So, again, the court said, in effect, re-work your case and state a claim against CFTOD clearly.
 
M

mmascari

Well-Known Member
Some excerpts:
Before the legislative amendments, Disney enjoyed voting rights in the district that regulated its property. See ECF No. 87 ¶ 39. Now it does not. Now it faces land use decisions by a board over which it has no control.4 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.
Click to expand...
Looks like it says they suffered a constitutional injury.

In fact, Disney has not alleged any specific injury from any board action. Its alleged injury, as discussed above, is its operating under a board it cannot control. That injury would exist whether or not the Governor controlled the board, meaning an injunction Case 4:23-cv-00163-AW-MJF Document 114 Filed 01/31/24 Page 6 of 177precluding the Governor from influencing the board would not redress Disney’s asserted injury.
Click to expand...
But, not a more specific harm traced directly from the Governor. Seems to read that lacking evidence of a direct request from the Governor to the board, not just some implied thing, where that action causes harm, the court is saying just appointing someone isn't enough to show the Governor caused harm.

This feels like the quid pro interpretations that rule a wink and nudge isn't enough and there needs to be a bag with dollar signs on it.

But 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.”
Click to expand...
This is like the other state employee ruling. Didn't that get sent back to the lower court on appeal recently? This is the one that creates a horrible first amendment interpretation. It effectively says if they're not directly regulating speech, the fact that the action was done to restrict speech doesn't matter. It's a massive loophole that severely undermines the first amendment.
 
JohnD

JohnD

Well-Known Member
ZachPL said:
It get's appealed to the 11th circuit, being dismissed prior to trial is an even higher bar that has to be reached by the judge. So I wouldn't say it's Highly unlikely to succeed. At least at this point.


A federalist society member whos views directly align with trump and desantis. Frankly it was expected.
Click to expand...
I agree. It would be one thing if the case were heard and the judge ruled against Disney. They would have ruling they could appeal. But that didn't happen. He said Disney didn't have standing so he dismissed the case. It sure would take a lot for a higher court to pick up a dismissed case. Of course, Disney could file a new suit against CFTOD. We'll just have to wait and see what they have up their sleeve.
 
flynnibus

flynnibus

Premium Member
JohnD said:
I saw that part. It also said "Plaintiff’s claims against the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District board members are dismissed on the merits for failure to state a claim."

So, again, the court said, in effect, re-work your case and state a claim against CFTOD clearly.
Click to expand...
No - it doesn't
 
mkt

mkt

Disney's Favorite Scumbag™
Premium Member
I'm chatting with one of my drinking crew, a person is an old friend of mine who is a planner for Disney.

TL;DR: CFTOD is actively delaying permits. They can't even get basic ones like snack stands, much less attractions.

Environmental rules might be Disney's saving grace in this one, in case CFTOD decides to mess with the water table to spite the mouse.

(those who saw the screenshots know what was said specifically)
 
Last edited:
flynnibus

flynnibus

Premium Member
JohnD said:
I agree. It would be one thing if the case were heard and the judge ruled against Disney. They would have ruling they could appeal. But that didn't happen. He said Disney didn't have standing so he dismissed the case.
Click to expand...

No he didn't. There are TWO conclusions here. The whole standing thing is PURELY about the Gov and Sec of State being defendants... That's it. Then he dismissed the case against the CFTOD due to lack of merit because of his application of standards from Hubbard.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom