Instead of retaliation, I think the argument needs to be framed in terms of free speech.
The point of referring to retaliation is to prove impairment because they didn’t proactively limit or prevent disney’s activity. It is the deterrent or consequence being applied that makes it an impairment of their rights.
Their act of retaliation invokes the “chilling effect” doctrine. The chilling effect doctrine has been upheld that as violation of their rights because it deters participation/activity for fear of punishment. And deprivation of government benefit is recognized as punishment.
Several here have tried to claim it’s not a 1a topic because
1- they didn’t prevent disney from doing it or
2- that they didn’t punish disney itself or
3- that retaliation isn’t part of the text
The chilling effect doctrine interpreted by the supreme court is the simplest way to qualify how the action taken by the state limits free speech. It illustrates how all three of the retorts above are irrelevant because disney is still being deterred from their protected activity by the state acting to deprive disney of their government benefits.
Fear of punishment -> deterrence ~> chilling effect ~> 1a violation
Targeting reedy creek to deprive disney of benefit is the punitive action taken specifically to try to deprive disney of government benefits in response to their protected freedom of speech. It’s not hard to call it a deterrent when the state itself says it’s a bargining chip.
ETA: Chilling effect doctrine does not evolve from retaliation employment law - it’s the other way around. the reference of chilling effect in employment cases comes from the use of the chilling effect doctrine in supreme court cases around 1a including loyalty oaths and some other cold war era cases
