As many people may remember, there has been an ongoing fight between Disney and Gov. Ron DeSantis. The State of Florida attempted to wrestle back control of the Reedy Creek District specially created for Disney, giving it government-within-a-government special status. When the State passed legislation changing the district’s governing board, Disney filed a suit claiming, among other things, that their free speech rights were being violated.
Judge Allen Winsor has dismissed the case both for reasons of lack of standing and on its merits.
In 1967, Florida’s Legislature created the Reedy Creek Improvement District (RCID), a special improvement district in Central Florida. See Ch. 67-764, Laws of Fla. The district is perhaps best known as the home of Walt Disney World, which has operated there for decades. And as the district’s largest landowner, Disney1 has effectively controlled the district’s board, whose members were elected based on land ownership. That changed last year, after the Florida Legislature substantially amended the district’s governing structure. Now, Florida’s Governor selects the board members, subject to Senate confirmation. See Ch. 23-5, § 2(4)(1), Laws of Fla. As a result, Disney no longer controls the special improvement district in which it operates. (That district is now called the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District, or CFTOD. See id. § 2(1).)
This change—which works to Disney’s significant detriment—came after Disney publicly criticized another Florida law, the Parental Rights in Education Act. In Disney’s view, this timing was no coincidence. Disney alleges that the Florida Legislature changed the district’s governing structure to punish it for its speech. The issue in this case is whether the Legislature’s action constituted unlawful retaliation against Disney’s speech in violation of the First Amendment.2
Defendants are the Governor, the Secretary of Florida’s Department of Commerce,3 and all members of CFTOD’s board. All Defendants moved to dismiss. The Governor and the Secretary argue lack of standing and Eleventh Amendment immunity. The CFTOD Defendants argue Disney’s claim fails on the merits. After a hearing, and having carefully considered the parties’ arguments, I now grant both motions.
In short, Disney lacks standing to sue the Governor or the Secretary, and its claims against the CFTOD Defendants fail on the merits because “when a statute is facially constitutional, a plaintiff cannot bring a free-speech challenge by claiming that the lawmakers who passed it acted with a constitutionally impermissible purpose.” In re Hubbard, 803 F.3d 1298, 1312 (11th Cir. 2015).
This just seems to make sense. Otherwise, any activist, who opposed any legislation that might affect them, could do the same thing. That is, they could say it’s retaliation for them exercising their free speech rights.