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

[Chi84]

Just a quick survey: Most of us here still agree today that Disney's legal team is pretty incredible and will legally stomp all over the state of Florida in the next months and years. Florida has nothing to stand on and will go down in flames.....right?

The law isn't that simplistic. What I can say from reading the pleadings is that Disney's legal team is following the usual process, while the attorneys representing Florida appear to be drafting pleadings for someone other than the court.

My own thoughts are that Disney has a strong First Amendment claim - at least according to precedent. But there is no question that local courts have always been sensitive to influences other than the law and this seems to be creeping into federal courts as well.

My take is this is not a good trend; the people have their elected representatives in the legislative and executive branches. The courts are supposed to be above all of that and ensure that the principles enshrined in the constitution are not trampled in service to current majority whims.

 

[LAKid53]

The law isn't that simplistic. What I can say from reading the pleadings is that Disney's legal team is following the usual process, while the attorneys representing Florida appear to be drafting pleadings for someone other than the court.

My own thoughts are that Disney has a strong First Amendment claim - at least according to precedent. But there is no question that local courts have always been sensitive to influences other than the law and this seems to be creeping into federal courts as well.

My take is this is not a good trend; the people have their elected representatives in the legislative and executive branches. The courts are supposed to be above all of that and ensure that the principles enshrined in the constitution are not trampled in service to current majority whims.

Yes, the attorneys have an audience that isn't just the courts.

And I agree with you regarding the encroachment of non-legal principles into the courts at all levels.

 

[GrumpyFan]

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (a real organization unlike the Galaxy Bar Association) has filed an amicus brief in support of Disney’s federal case.

Motion to File Amicus Brief – #64 in WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS US INC v. DESANTIS (N.D. Fla., 4:23-cv-00163) – CourtListener.com

***AMICUS BRIEF (ECF 64 AT 11-50) IS ACCEPTED AND DEEMED PROPERLY FILED PER 67 ORDER GRANTING 64 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF*** --- Consent MOTION to File Amicus Brief Consent Motion and Memorandum in Support for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae the Reporters Committee For Freedom...

www.courtlistener.com

Some great arguments made in this filing in support of Disney's First Amendment violation claims.
It's a good read, even for those who aren't in the legal profession, and it's not too difficult to follow.
Here's a few snippets from the conclusion.

There can be no serious question whether the First Amended Complaint amply
alleges that the State of Florida targeted Disney to retaliate against its dissenting
speech. It is plain from the content and context of these statutes, Governor
DeSantis’s repeated public comments and memoir, the debate in the Legislature, and
public comments by Florida legislators and members of the Central Florida Tourism
Oversight Board. All are undisguised expressions of retaliatory intent catalogued in
the First Amended Complaint.

Defendants also argue that “even if the bills targeted” Disney specifically,
Disney still has no recourse because Defendants have the “sovereign prerogative to
reorganize a local government that provides services and levies taxes in a major
metropolitan region.” State Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion
to Dismiss, Dkt. 49, at 22. But simply because a state may pass a law to “reorganize
a local government” in general, that does not mean the state may pass such a law
with a retaliatory motive. Defendants do not have the “sovereign prerogative” to
abridge an individual’ (or corporation’s) First Amendment rights by passing
retaliatory legislation designed to punish that individual (or corporation) for their
protected speech.

Defendants do not even try to argue that these laws were not motivated by
retaliation—nor could they at the motion to dismiss stage, where the allegations in
the First Amended Complaint must be taken as true. Instead, Defendants try to
immunize this alleged conduct entirely from judicial review. Were that the law, First
Amendment retaliation claims, even in the face of manifest evidence of retaliatory
motive, would be much more difficult to bring, jeopardizing well-established
constitutional protections strengthening the independence of the press.

This is a significant First Amendment case. One of the world’s largest
companies has alleged that a state openly acted to punish it for speaking out on issues
of public concern—and the State has admitted as much. The motions to dismiss
should be denied.

I can only hope the court weighs this and will rule appropriately.

 

[DCBaker]

New press release from the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District.

Today, District Administrator, Glenton Gilzean announced the abolition of all DEI programs at the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District. The announcement comes after the Reedy Creek Improvement District implemented hiring and contracting programs that discriminated against Americans based on gender and race, costing taxpayers millions of dollars.

The announcement comes after an internal investigation into the district’s policies. The district’s DEI committee will be dissolved and any DEI job duties will be eliminated. CFTOD staff will also no longer be permitted to use any staff time to pursue DEI initiatives.

“The so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives were advanced during the tenure of the previous board and they were illegal and simply unamerican,” said Administrator Gilzean. “Our district will no longer participate in any attempt to divide us by race or advance the notion that we are not created equal. As the former head of the Central Florida Urban League, a civil rights organization, I can say definitively that our community thrives only when we work together despite our differences.”

Under its Minority/ Women Business Enterprise and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise programs, the Reedy Creek Improvement District routinely awarded contracts based on racially and gender driven goals to businesses on the basis of their owners’ race and gender. Through the program, the Reedy Creek Improvement District instituted gender and racial quotas to ensure that contractors met a certain threshold of diversity. In order to meet these quotas, it is estimated that the district had to pay millions of dollars more in order to find businesses who could comply.

After entering into a contract, Reedy Creek employees aggressively monitored contractor’s racial and gender practices, wasting taxpayer dollars. Previous contracts threatened contractors who did not keep up with racial or gender quotes with nonpayment and disqualification from future bidding.

CENTRAL FLORIDA TOURISM OVERSIGHT DISTRICT ABOLISHES DEI BOARD AND RACE-BASED CONTRACTING - Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

CENTRAL FLORIDA TOURISM OVERSIGHT DISTRICT ABOLISHES DEI BOARD AND RACE-BASED CONTRACTING Eliminating all CFTOD DEI initiatives and programs will save millions of dollars each year LAKE BUENA VISTA, FL – […]

www.rcid.org

 

[wdwmagic]

New press release from the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District.

Today, District Administrator, Glenton Gilzean announced the abolition of all DEI programs at the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District. The announcement comes after the Reedy Creek Improvement District implemented hiring and contracting programs that discriminated against Americans based on gender and race, costing taxpayers millions of dollars.

The announcement comes after an internal investigation into the district’s policies. The district’s DEI committee will be dissolved and any DEI job duties will be eliminated. CFTOD staff will also no longer be permitted to use any staff time to pursue DEI initiatives.

“The so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives were advanced during the tenure of the previous board and they were illegal and simply unamerican,” said Administrator Gilzean. “Our district will no longer participate in any attempt to divide us by race or advance the notion that we are not created equal. As the former head of the Central Florida Urban League, a civil rights organization, I can say definitively that our community thrives only when we work together despite our differences.”

Under its Minority/ Women Business Enterprise and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise programs, the Reedy Creek Improvement District routinely awarded contracts based on racially and gender driven goals to businesses on the basis of their owners’ race and gender. Through the program, the Reedy Creek Improvement District instituted gender and racial quotas to ensure that contractors met a certain threshold of diversity. In order to meet these quotas, it is estimated that the district had to pay millions of dollars more in order to find businesses who could comply.

After entering into a contract, Reedy Creek employees aggressively monitored contractor’s racial and gender practices, wasting taxpayer dollars. Previous contracts threatened contractors who did not keep up with racial or gender quotes with nonpayment and disqualification from future bidding.

CENTRAL FLORIDA TOURISM OVERSIGHT DISTRICT ABOLISHES DEI BOARD AND RACE-BASED CONTRACTING - Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

CENTRAL FLORIDA TOURISM OVERSIGHT DISTRICT ABOLISHES DEI BOARD AND RACE-BASED CONTRACTING Eliminating all CFTOD DEI initiatives and programs will save millions of dollars each year LAKE BUENA VISTA, FL – […]

www.rcid.org

People may take them more serious if everything they said wasn't an attempt to seek attention, be political, and take shots at the previous setup. How about just doing the job quietly and properly.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

People may take them more serious if everything they said wasn't an attempt to seek attention, be political, and take shots at the previous setup. How about just doing the job quietly and properly.

The problem is that is all they are there to do. Their only job is to screw Disney over in any way that they can while still looking like they are doing the right thing - which we all know is not the right thing.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Just a quick survey: Most of us here still agree today that Disney's legal team is pretty incredible and will legally stomp all over the state of Florida in the next months and years. Florida has nothing to stand on and will go down in flames.....right?

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.

 

[Cliff]

The law isn't that simplistic. What I can say from reading the pleadings is that Disney's legal team is following the usual process, while the attorneys representing Florida appear to be drafting pleadings for someone other than the court.

My own thoughts are that Disney has a strong First Amendment claim - at least according to precedent. But there is no question that local courts have always been sensitive to influences other than the law and this seems to be creeping into federal courts as well.

My take is this is not a good trend; the people have their elected representatives in the legislative and executive branches. The courts are supposed to be above all of that and ensure that the principles enshrined in the constitution are not trampled in service to current majority whims.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[LAKid53]

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 corruption.

If she did, it would be covered in the major newspapers in the state. There's been no such reports.

 

[jinx8402]

If that's the state's position, they will need to prove it in a court of law. With evidence.

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]

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.

Not to mention the blatant statements that it was done in retaliation . . .

 

[LAKid53]

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.

 

[mmascari]

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"]

Okay. How many people quickly glanced over the headline and thought it said "John Cleese" or was that just me?

 

[LAKid53]

Okay. How many people quickly glanced over the headline and thought it said "John Cleese" or was that just me?

Just you, dude.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Think back to who was governor then.

Not to mention the blatant statements that it was done in retaliation . . .

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]

"entitled" to have control of RCID

No, they aren't entitled, but that doesn't matter here.

The state can "give" it for any reason and can "remove" or "change" it for any reason.

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 questions that might rule against Disney's favor are:

• 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.

I "suspect" that the state of Florida will "try" to demonstrate that Disney was operating RCID in a "corrupt" or even "ileagal" way

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]

Looks like it was all done for nothing anyway.

Wait what'd I miss?