[ad_1]
A judge has dismissed Disney’s First Amendment federal lawsuit against Gov. Ron DeSantis and others, a decision that could have major implications for corporate advocacy, especially when it comes to controversial topics.
Mr. DeSantis, with the help of Republican lawmakers, stripped Disney of control of the special tax district and gave it to himself. The company ultimately sued Mr. and the district’s new leaders in federal court. Punishing speech violates the First Amendment, the paper said.
But U.S. District Judge Allen Windsor dismissed the lawsuit Wednesday.
Windsor, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump, said he lacked standing to dismiss the allegations against DeSantis and Florida Department of Commerce Secretary Alex Kelly.
“To the extent that the Governor harmed Disney by appointing CFTOD directors, that conduct is in the past,” Windsor wrote. “Because Disney is seeking injunctive relief, he must allege immediate future damages.”
Preparing to vote: See who’s running for president and compare their positions on important issues with our voter guide
He said the allegations against district leadership “are dismissed on the merits for failure to state a claim.”
“That argument … fails on the merits because ‘if a law is constitutional on its face, plaintiffs can challenge free speech by claiming that the legislators who passed it acted for a constitutionally impermissible purpose. ‘You cannot do that,'” Windsor wrote. 2015 Appeal Judgment.
The state, in court and in court papers, cites the same decision stemming from a lawsuit filed by the Alabama Education Association that accused lawmakers of retaliating by passing a law banning payroll, and questioned whether the action was retaliatory. claimed that it was not a problem. Membership fees will be deducted for organizations that use “a portion of their donations for political activities.”
Their argument, which Windsor agreed with, is that if a law is constitutional on its face, it doesn’t matter whether it was enacted for retaliatory purposes.
“No one reading the challenged law’s text would think it was directed against Disney,” Windsor wrote. After all, under the circuit’s law, “a court should not look to a law’s legislative history to find ulterior motives in a law that is constitutional.”
Windsor wrote that it is true that Disney is “bearing the brunt of the harm” from the law.
“But Disney says courts should draw the line to determine how much else the law must cover to avoid ‘singling out’ those most affected.” “We do not support Disney’s claims,” Windsor said.
District leadership included members of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District, previously known as the Reedy Creek Improvement District, and District Administrator Glenn Gilzean Jr.
They have already made a number of changes, some of which are controversial, such as eliminating the district’s diversity, equity and inclusion program.
DeSantis’ press secretary, Jeremy Redfern, praised the decision.
“The days when Disney controlled its own government and were above the law are long gone,” he said in a statement. “The federal court ruling makes it clear that Governor DeSantis was right. Disney is still just one of many companies in the state, and they have no right to their own special government. In short, for a long time. As expected, the case was dismissed.”
Meanwhile, Disney previously warned in a filing that DeSantis’ victory in court would open the floodgates to suppress speech.
“If the state’s strategy is successful, it is certain that Disney will not be the last company to be punished for supporting unfavorable views,” the company wrote.
This reporting content is supported by a partnership with Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. USA Today Network-Florida First Amendment reporter Douglas Soule is based in Tallahassee, Florida. Contact him at DSoule@gannett.com. X top: @DouglasSoule.
[ad_2]
Source link
