-
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
Whether we agree or disagree with the governor's actions, Disney's statement, HB 1557 or anything else on the topic isn't really the important thing.
It's that the state's actions are prohibited by both the US and state constitutions. And there's sufficient case law, especially with regards to the Contracts Clause - which language also exists in the state constitution - to support that prohibition.
My person opinion? The state errored filing in state court. Now Florida Supreme Court decisions on contracts come into play. And they don't favor the government. Furthermore, the state sued in the 9th judicial district. The jury pool will be drawn from Orange and Osceola counties.
Explain what you mean by a "conduit"?
flynnibus
Premium Member
This is why they used special sessions of the legislature to push the main acts through. Accelerated schedules with less obligations. The points about econmic studies, consultation with the counties, etc are the choices the GOP made to ram the two bills through. Just pass 'em... don't question them.
The lack of consultation (so they could surprise Disney) is a large portion of why their first bill couldn't get the job done on it's own and they had to go back and redo their attempt to sabotage Disney.
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
I think this accurately characterises what it is that’s bothering me. Criticisms of DeSantis ring hollow coming from those who feel such barely disguised glee at the idea of Disney getting its comeuppance.
Fordlover
Active Member
Fundamentally speaking, anytime you alienate even a small portion of your customers, it is bad for the bottom line. I do not reside in Florida, so I have absolutely no skin in the game and I don't get a vote. But I am a Disney shareholder. I have no ability to exert any pressure on DeSantis as he doesn't represent me.
Notypeo
Member
I can’t say I’m entirely sure. My sense is that it’s a third party who serves as a go-between between board members. So, for instance, if Person A is on a board and wants to tell Person B her position on an upcoming issue without going public, Person A might have Person C — who’s not on the board — send the message to Person B. My sense is that, in that case, Person C is being a conduit.
The 3 analyses done by staff with the respective committees for HB 9B stated that the district would continue to have the power to assess and collect ad valorem taxes, issue bonds that would be tax exempt and that said taxes & revenues collected must be for the benefit of property owners in the district. So basically restating what's in the original Charter.
No private sector impact (leasees in DS and DVC members might disagree) and only government impact would be costs related hiring of staff, specified reporting requirements and implementating district name change.
Edit: I hate my phone's autocorrect, lol.
Last edited:
Which COULD be a violation, depending on who Person C is.
The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 would prohibit Disney from banning anyone over the age of 60 from the parks if it received any federal funds. I believe Title 5 of the Civil Rights Act also prohibits discrimination on the basis of age.
Interesting Article from Puck: https://puck.news/iger-vs-desantis-the-next-steps/?_cio_id=f6c6060ec7a601e8f71a&utm_campaign=The+Daily+Courant+-+SUBSCRIBERS+(5/2/23)&utm_content=The+Daily+Courant+-+SUBSCRIBERS+(5/2/23)&utm_medium=email_action&utm_source=customer.io
And for those that don't have a subscription:
One thing about Disney’s legal action that has escaped commentary—even though it’s likely to become the center of attention—is how O’Melveny litigation superstar Daniel Petrocelli has managed to file this case in federal court. Disney’s move makes tactical sense. The company, after all, surely wanted to bypass DeSantis-appointed judges, eventually at Florida’s Supreme Court. But can it?
Here’s where the 11th Amendment may come up. This constitutional addendum restricts the ability of citizens to bring suits against states in federal court. This bar, enacted at a time when states had debt problems and sovereignty was a paramount concern, can be puzzling. Four years ago, for instance, the Supreme Court wrestled with the hard-to-fathom yet evidently correct notion that states have immunity for their intellectual property thievery. “One might think that Walt Disney Pictures could sue a state for hosting an unlicensed screening of the studio’s blockbuster film Pirates of the Caribbean (or any of its many sequels),” wrote now retired Supreme Court justice Stephen Breyer, marveling at the unanimous ruling by his colleagues. “Yet the court holds otherwise.”
Of course, the 11th Amendment isn’t impenetrable. There are ways around it, and Disney is steering its case towards the most legally famous (and most controversial) path by citing the Ex Parte Young doctrine, which dates back to a 1908 case that held that state officials could be sued in federal court to prevent them from enforcing unconstitutional laws. Notably, Disney isn’t shooting for damages in its power battle with DeSantis. That would be a sure loser under sovereign immunity precedent. Instead, the corporation aims for declaratory and injunctive relief to ensure that local officials honor previously recognized contracts.
DeSantis will probably respond that this stretches the Ex Parte Young doctrine beyond what’s permissible. He’ll likely argue that land use is a local issue—and that despite the fact that the governor now appoints members to the oversight board, he has no real enforcement authority over these contracts. If that’s the DeSantis administration’s initial move to beat a First Amendment claim in federal court (while pushing a parallel suit in state court), it won’t be the first time. In fact, that’s pretty similar to what DeSantis tried in Dream Defenders, a 2021 case that dealt with a DeSantis-era anti-rioting law that came in the wake of Black Lives Matter protests. There, U.S. District Court Judge Mark Walker rejected the governor’s challenge to being hauled into federal court, pointing out that DeSantis has the authority to call the state militia to respond to a “riot” and had actually done so. Walker wrote, “Does Governor DeSantis really contend that no plaintiff in any case could ever have standing to sue him?”
Disney v. DeSantis, of course, has just been assigned to the very same Judge Walker, who also once called the Stop WOKE Act “positively dystopian.” (By filing in Tallahassee, Disney had a 35 percent chance at landing its case with Walker, the same probability of being stuck with Trump appointee Allen Winsor. Some magical fairy dust, I guess.)
Still, don’t shrug off this sovereign immunity issue just because of the judge. Anyone inclined to do so would be well-advised to heed DeSantis’s battle with Andrew Warren, the Tampa-area district attorney whom the governor suspended, ostensibly for pledging not to prosecute certain low-level offenses. Warren went to federal court, claiming, like Disney, that the governor retaliated against him for speaking up on social issues (in his case, on abortion and transgender issues). In January, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Hinkle—a Clinton appointee—agreed that DeSantis was wrong to oust Warren yet nevertheless ruled the 11th Amendment tied his hands. (Incidentally, Warren is scheduled to argue his appeal tomorrow at the 11th Circuit.)
If this situation starts going badly for Disney, the company may lean on its alternative claim that the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment prevents citizens from being deprived of property without just compensation. The Supreme Court recently held that a Takings Clause claim can be brought against a local government in federal court so it’s not a surprise to see Disney trot it out as a secondary legal theory in its complaint. Although, on further thought, is Disney really suggesting that DeSantis stole Disney World? Now that’d be some villainy in the Magic Kingdom.
And for those that don't have a subscription:
Iger vs. DeSantis: The Next Steps
Last week, Disney sued Ron DeSantis over control of some very valuable swampland. The decision to go to court was predictable, of course: C.E.O. Bob Iger wants wide discretion on land use around Disney World, which covers some 43 square miles of Central Florida. And DeSantis, who says he doesn’t believe in “old-guard corporate Republicanism,” won’t stop yapping about “woke ideology.” Now comes a case over the voiding of Disney’s developmental contracts—a reflection, the company claims, of how DeSantis is waging a “relentless campaign to weaponize government power against Disney in retaliation for expressing a political viewpoint unpopular with certain State officials.” (Here’s the complaint.)One thing about Disney’s legal action that has escaped commentary—even though it’s likely to become the center of attention—is how O’Melveny litigation superstar Daniel Petrocelli has managed to file this case in federal court. Disney’s move makes tactical sense. The company, after all, surely wanted to bypass DeSantis-appointed judges, eventually at Florida’s Supreme Court. But can it?
Here’s where the 11th Amendment may come up. This constitutional addendum restricts the ability of citizens to bring suits against states in federal court. This bar, enacted at a time when states had debt problems and sovereignty was a paramount concern, can be puzzling. Four years ago, for instance, the Supreme Court wrestled with the hard-to-fathom yet evidently correct notion that states have immunity for their intellectual property thievery. “One might think that Walt Disney Pictures could sue a state for hosting an unlicensed screening of the studio’s blockbuster film Pirates of the Caribbean (or any of its many sequels),” wrote now retired Supreme Court justice Stephen Breyer, marveling at the unanimous ruling by his colleagues. “Yet the court holds otherwise.”
Of course, the 11th Amendment isn’t impenetrable. There are ways around it, and Disney is steering its case towards the most legally famous (and most controversial) path by citing the Ex Parte Young doctrine, which dates back to a 1908 case that held that state officials could be sued in federal court to prevent them from enforcing unconstitutional laws. Notably, Disney isn’t shooting for damages in its power battle with DeSantis. That would be a sure loser under sovereign immunity precedent. Instead, the corporation aims for declaratory and injunctive relief to ensure that local officials honor previously recognized contracts.
DeSantis will probably respond that this stretches the Ex Parte Young doctrine beyond what’s permissible. He’ll likely argue that land use is a local issue—and that despite the fact that the governor now appoints members to the oversight board, he has no real enforcement authority over these contracts. If that’s the DeSantis administration’s initial move to beat a First Amendment claim in federal court (while pushing a parallel suit in state court), it won’t be the first time. In fact, that’s pretty similar to what DeSantis tried in Dream Defenders, a 2021 case that dealt with a DeSantis-era anti-rioting law that came in the wake of Black Lives Matter protests. There, U.S. District Court Judge Mark Walker rejected the governor’s challenge to being hauled into federal court, pointing out that DeSantis has the authority to call the state militia to respond to a “riot” and had actually done so. Walker wrote, “Does Governor DeSantis really contend that no plaintiff in any case could ever have standing to sue him?”
Disney v. DeSantis, of course, has just been assigned to the very same Judge Walker, who also once called the Stop WOKE Act “positively dystopian.” (By filing in Tallahassee, Disney had a 35 percent chance at landing its case with Walker, the same probability of being stuck with Trump appointee Allen Winsor. Some magical fairy dust, I guess.)
Still, don’t shrug off this sovereign immunity issue just because of the judge. Anyone inclined to do so would be well-advised to heed DeSantis’s battle with Andrew Warren, the Tampa-area district attorney whom the governor suspended, ostensibly for pledging not to prosecute certain low-level offenses. Warren went to federal court, claiming, like Disney, that the governor retaliated against him for speaking up on social issues (in his case, on abortion and transgender issues). In January, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Hinkle—a Clinton appointee—agreed that DeSantis was wrong to oust Warren yet nevertheless ruled the 11th Amendment tied his hands. (Incidentally, Warren is scheduled to argue his appeal tomorrow at the 11th Circuit.)
If this situation starts going badly for Disney, the company may lean on its alternative claim that the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment prevents citizens from being deprived of property without just compensation. The Supreme Court recently held that a Takings Clause claim can be brought against a local government in federal court so it’s not a surprise to see Disney trot it out as a secondary legal theory in its complaint. Although, on further thought, is Disney really suggesting that DeSantis stole Disney World? Now that’d be some villainy in the Magic Kingdom.
Brian
Well-Known Member
Could be wrong, I thought it was Senate Bill 4-C from 2022.
Yes, I think that's it.
Brian
Well-Known Member
SB 4-C (2022) - Independent Special Districts | Florida House of Representatives
www.myfloridahouse.gov
Already uploaded and attached.