CaptainAmerica
Premium Member
I think this most likely ends when a new gubernatorial administration in Florida decides they don't actually care about this anymore, and things largely go back to the way they were.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District
- Thread starter castlecake2.0
- Start date
My question is this: Was Disney "entitled" to have control of RCID and Florida recinded that "entitlement" because it did not like Disney's political views?
I see it both ways:
Yes,...Florida did remove Disney's controll of RCID because of Disney's political activism against the state. Yes, it was "retrubution" against Disney....in a way...but!!
No...Disney was never "entitled" to controll RCID. That municipality is 100% a creature of the state of Florida. Disney has ZERO claim to RCID and ZERO "right" to operate it. The state can "give" it for any reason and can "remove" or "change" it for any reason. RCID never "belonged" to Disney in ANY way and they have no claim over it.
I "suspect" that the state of Florida will "try" to demonstrate that Disney was operating RCID in a "corrupt" or even "ileagal" way....and THAT is why that state stepped in to change it. They will say THAT was their justification. (Even though justification is not required)
I dunno...im not a lawyer and I dont claim to be. I could be 100% wrong but this is the way my limited view sees it.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
This has been covered many times. Documents from the state that reach a different conclusion have been provided. Provisions of the state constitution and state law have been cited.
GrumpyFan
Well-Known Member
Take a look at the latest Amicus brief and the comments made there. It was covered very well with several cases cited that were very similar retaliatory actions taken against free speech that the court ruled violated the first amendment.
Even if Disney was operating it in a corrupt manner, that would be a separate issue, but also it wasn't mentioned in any of the filings nor in recorded sessions discussing the legislation to change the board. Nor has the state's attorney general filed any claims against Disney (that I'm aware) citing alleged corruption.
Last edited:
If she did, it would be covered in the major newspapers in the state. There's been no such reports.
I keep going back to, if the state really felt that way (and it wasn't just retaliation), why was there no report/analysis done like back in 2004? That is where that argument falls flat.
Chi84
Premium Member
Not to mention the blatant statements that it was done in retaliation . . .
I'm surprised, frankly, that the lawyers for the state haven't advised their client(s) to refrain from public statements.
I would assume they have advised them about this.
Not being able to follow that advice is completely on brand.
"El Gran Magnifico"
Mr Flibble is Very Cross.
Okay. How many people quickly glanced over the headline and thought it said "John Cleese" or was that just me?
CaptainAmerica
Premium Member
It might not matter. Courts don't like to rule on legislative intent and often try cute maneuvering to avoid having to do so.
The Governor and several legislators made those blatant statements, but the bill was passed by the legislature at large. Attributing the motives of legislaTORS to the legislaTURE might not be something the court wants to get into. Current case law about government action taken in retaliation for speech is usually tied to administrative (i.e. executive) agencies, not legislatures.
Plus, all of this has unfolded in stages and Disney wasn't really the party directly harmed by the legislation itself. The legislation was an action taken by the State against RCID. Then, later, the CFTOD has taken actions against Disney. I think the State is on solid ground for doing what they did to RCID, since RCID was a creation of the State in the first place. But the CFTOD taking punitive action against Disney and not acting in good faith on behalf of the citizens and taxpayers of the district is where the problems come up.
Said another way, I don't think Disney would have much of a case if RCID had been replaced by CFTOD and then CFTOD proceeded to treat Disney fairly.
mikejs78
Premium Member
No, they aren't entitled, but that doesn't matter here.
That's not correct. States have limits on what they can do, even when using something that falls under their general powers. For example:
- Many special districts in Florida are residentail districts (think The Villages). Hypothetically, If the state decided to do what they did to RCID to one of these special districts specifically because there were a high % of a specific racial or ethnic minotiry lived there, that would most likely be deemed unconstitutional due to violations of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, and/or invalid due to being a violation of the federal Civil Rights Act.
- States generally have the power to determine the criteria for tax exemt status. In many states, tax exempt status is given to religious institutions. The state can generally add or remove tax exempt status at will, and no one is entitled to tax exempt status. However, if a state passed a law saying that only religious institutions whose leadership were citizens of the US were entitled to tax exempt status (e.g. excluding the Catholic Church), that would lilkely be deemed unconstitutional violation of the 1A's establishment clause. It would be one thing if the state decided to remove tax exempt status for *all* religious institutions, but another if they picked and chose.
- No company is entitled to a state contract. But (and there is case law to support this) if a company's contract is cancelled explicitly because of constitutionally protected speech, then that exercise of a state's normal abilitieis to engage in contracts would be overriden by the constitutional concerns.
In other words, an ordinarily normal power of the state becomes unconstitutional when it's done for reasons that violate particular constitutional provisions. The First Amendment doesn't say "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, except when someone isn't entitled to something to begin with", it says "Congres shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech (and the 14th amendment extended that protection to the states). Now, there's some nuance as to what kind of speech is protected, and what the bar is for a law that abridges free speech. And so there's some uncertanty, even in this case, but I think Disney's case is strong.
The three principles favoring Disney in their 1A suite (taking out the contract issues) are:
- Disney's speech was political in nature, which the courts have ruled (and the founders stated) is the highest form of protected speech.
- The legislature and the governor constantly stated that they were doing this because of Disney's speech
- The effect of the state's action has the effect of chilling speech
- The state has also stated that they want to use the new RCID board to force Disney to change the types of movies it releases
- The question on whether or not Disney as a corporation is entitled to free speech. Citizens United would lead one to think so, but that court case was somewhat controversial.
- The fact that the courts generally give the benefit of the doubt to legislators on intent - but the record is so specific here, that may be difficult to prove.
That will be a hard case for them to make, as that was never given as a reason for the legislation the entire time. It was all about Disney expressing its opinion. They can't easily just make that argument now, after the fact.
CaptainAmerica
Premium Member
Wait what'd I miss?
mikejs78
Premium Member
Generally true - but there are cases where the courts have read into legislative intent because it's been so blatent. That is somewhat the case here -
- The special session was called by the governor for the express purpose of punishing Disney for their speech
- The drafters of the bill stated that it was done to punish their speech
- Everyone who spoke on the record stated that it was for that puprose
- After the development agreement came up, the state passed numerous other laws, specificially targeted at Disney, to punish them. (The monorail inspection bill, the cancelling of the contracts, etc.) and were written in such a way as to only apply to Disney.
Last edited by a moderator:
Chi84
Premium Member
Sorry - deleted the comment.
James Alucobond
Well-Known Member
The way CFTOD is structured is fundamentally problematic because it represents none of the interests of the landowners it oversees. It is uniquely designed to be the bludgeoning arm of a single legislator who has clearly stated that he wants to interfere in the business of the area’s residents, to the detriment of both Disney and the state at large.
New filing regarding the schedule in the Disney v. DeSantis case.
www.courtlistener.com
Order – #68 in WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS US INC v. DESANTIS (N.D. Fla., 4:23-cv-00163) – CourtListener.com
ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULE re 53 Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. The court will establish a litigation schedule after resolution of the pending motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 49, 50 ). Briefing on those motions is set to be completed August 9. ECF No. 48 . In the meantime, the parties must...
Another argument is this:
The state never did a thing to stop or hurt Disney's freedom speech. Absolutely nothing at all. In fact, Disney today is still 100% free to say anything they want. They back any poltical movement they choose and attack any politician they deem necessary. They can be an activist for any cause today.
The state only modified "their" RCID government. RCID is not a tool or advocate for the Walt Disney corporation. RCID's responsibility is to the general "public" and needs of the "citizens" of the state of "Florida"
Florida might argue that if Disney feels "attacked" because the state meesed with "Disney's RCID" government?....then that is a major problem.
Disney would then be admitting that RCID was just a "puppet government" of the company and the state actually "hurt" Disney by taking their "puppet" away.
To me, this is a complicated mess. Disney MUST walk a tight rope to prove that RCID was "NOT" a "puppet government" for Disney and that it always was 100% dedicated ONLY to the general public needs....yet, Florida still hurt Disney by making changes to RCID and replacing the board.
How does Disney have both at the same time? I dont know. Only the courts can judge that.