Here's the gist: This is the rare case where they really can’t be consolidated into one forum. Disney’s claim is strictly under federal law and the federal court has jurisdiction because of subject matter jurisdiction. There’s no diversity as they are both Florida-based so there’s really no grounds to remove the state court question in the federal court. And of course they can’t adjudicate the federal question in state court. So DeSantis may ask a federal judge to stay in consideration of the case, pending the outcome of the state court proceeding because it’s not unusual for federal judges to be asked to not rule on a constitutional question if there’s a concurrent state law question that could resolve the case, in this case, that the agreements the previous board signed are not valid, so whatever Florida did afterwards is irrelevant.
However, federal judges are not always inclined to stay, or defer addressing constitutional questions.
If the federal judge does not want to pause their case what could happen next is whoever gets a ruling on the field first runs to the other judge, and ask them to dismiss the case under res judicata, I E arguing, the case has already been decided in a way that is determinative.
Now here’s where I get a little cloudy. In theory, when the federal and state law are in conflict, federal law is supreme. That’s the supremacy clause.
In this particular case, there is a timing issue. I think that favors Disney ultimately because what prompted the board’s new deal was the actions DeSantis took. So in theory, if we stated the whole thing is unconstitutional, then everything that came after you could argue doesn’t matter. I have a question about the remedy, and whether a full win in federal court leaves them at a complete status quo ante.
In theory, also I would rather have the Disney side of the argument. DeSantis, the politician may have really hurt DeSantis, the governor, because all that chatter about getting back at woke corporations lays a neat groundwork for Disney to at the very least show retaliation over speech and this win the first amendment claim.
