Disney takes fight against DeSantis to appeals court
TALLAHASSEE - Walt Disney Parks and Resorts on Thursday quickly launched an appeal after a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit alleging the state unconstitutionally retaliated against the company over its opposition to an education law.
Lawyers for Disney filed a notice that is a first step in asking the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to take up the high-profile case. As is common, the notice did not detail arguments Disney will make at the Atlanta-based court.
The filing came after U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor on Wednesday issued a 17-page ruling that dismissed the lawsuit. Disney has alleged that the state violated its First Amendment rights by retaliating after company officials in 2022 opposed a controversial law that restricted instruction about sexual orientation and gender identity in schools.
The legal fight has focused heavily on a decision last year by Gov. Ron DeSantis and the Republican-controlled Legislature to replace the former Reedy Creek Improvement District with the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District. The decades-old Reedy Creek district was closely aligned with Disney, while DeSantis appoints the new district's board.
The district largely governs an area that includes Disney properties, including providing many services usually handled by local governments.
During an appearance Thursday in Jacksonville, DeSantis said he wasn't surprised that Winsor dismissed the case and suggested that Disney is making a "mistake" to appeal.
"They were wrong. We were right," DeSantis said. "The Florida Legislature has every right to change special districts. They've always had that right."
The lawsuit named as defendants DeSantis, Florida Commerce Secretary J. Alex Kelly and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District. Winsor ruled, in part, that Disney did not have legal standing to pursue the lawsuit against DeSantis and Kelly.
In dismissing the claims against the district, Winsor cited legal precedents preventing First Amendment retaliation claims against "facially constitutional" laws. He said disputed laws do not mention Disney and that their effects would go beyond Disney.
"The laws are directed at a special development district in which Disney operates," Winsor wrote. "But as Disney acknowledges, it is not the district's only landowner, and other landowners within the district are affected by the same laws."
Also, Winsor rejected the idea that he should look at the motivations of lawmakers in passing the changes. He pointed to two precedents from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
"At the end of the day, under the law of this circuit, 'courts shouldn't look to a law's legislative history to find an illegitimate motivation for an otherwise constitutional statute.' Because that is what Disney seeks here, its claim fails as a matter of law," Winsor wrote.
Disney attorneys argued in the lawsuit that it "is a clear violation of Disney's federal First Amendment rights for the state to inflict a concerted campaign of retaliation because the company expressed an opinion with which the government disagreed" on the education issue.
In finding that Disney did not have standing to sue DeSantis, Winsor wrote that allegations that the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District board operates "under the 'governor's thumb,' are conclusory."
"Disney has not alleged any specific actions the new board took (or will take) because of the governor's alleged control," the ruling said. "In fact, Disney has not alleged any specific injury from any board action. Its alleged injury ... is its operating under a board it cannot control. That injury would exist whether or not the governor controlled the board, meaning an injunction precluding the governor from influencing the board would not redress Disney's asserted injury."