DeSantis Board Claims Disney’s Reedy Creek Lawsuit Is DOOMED

Since Florida Governor Ron DeSantis replaced Disney World’s Reedy Creek Improvement District with his personally-appointed Central Florida Tourism Oversight District (CFTOD), we’ve seen more developments follow.

Most notably, The Walt Disney Company filed a federal lawsuit against the CFTOD and DeSantis, arguing a first amendment violation among other things. Later, the DeSantis-appointed CFTOD board announced it would be suing Disney on a state level. But just recently, DeSantis and the state filed a motion to dismiss Disney’s federal lawsuit and we’re breaking down what you need to know.

Governor Ron DeSantis and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District took the next step in Disney’s federal suit against them late in the evening of June 26th. Attorneys for the state filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the federal case should be put on hold until the state’s case in Orange County Circuit Court is resolved — or the federal case should be dismissed altogether.

©CFTOD

In April 2023, Disney filed a federal lawsuit against DeSantis and members of the District’s new Board of Supervisors, alleging that the Governor has unlawfully retaliated against Disney because of statements Disney made against the Don’t Say Gay law. The lawsuit alleges that all of the actions taken against Disney — from the bill that first said it would dissolve the District to the latest actions by the board in declaring the Development Agreement void — have been part of DeSantis’ “relentless campaign to weaponize government power” against Disney.

But, in the motion to dismiss, the state is arguing that Disney lacks the legal standing to sue DeSantis and Meredith Ivey, acting secretary of the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity.

The motion states, “Although Disney has grabbed headlines by suing the governor, Disney — like many litigants before it who have challenged Florida’s laws — has no basis for doing so. Neither the governor nor the secretary [enforces] any of the laws at issue, so Disney lacks standing to sue them.”

Disney has raised multiple complaints in its federal case, one of which being that the state of Florida and DeSantis violated the company’s rights under the United States Constitution’s Contracts Clause.

Before the CFTOD taking over, the outgoing board of Reedy Creek and Disney entered into development agreements which the new board later sought to undo via a measure (SB 1604) to invalidate them. The state later filed a suit in Orange County hoping to have these agreements declared “null and void.”

The state’s lawyers have also argued that DeSantis and Ivey have sovereign immunity — essentially, that the government cannot be sued without its consent.

The motion states, “The Eleventh Amendment bars federal-court litigation against the State unless the immunity is waived or validly abrogated by Congress. Neither the Governor nor the Secretary enforces SB 1604, the CFTOD Declaration, SB 4C, or HB 9B. Those acts are enforced, at most, by the Board, either as a party to alleged contracts or as the entity animated by the tandem of SB 4C and HB 9B.”

In addition, DeSantis is claiming that “The Governor also is entitled to legislative immunity, which shields ‘both governors’ and legislators’ actions in the proposal, formulation, and passage of legislation.'”

“State officials are absolutely immune from suit for actions taken ‘in the sphere of legitimate legislative activity,'” the motion continues, and then argues, “These acts, in short, are exactly the kind of legislative decisions that legislative immunity protects. That is no less true even if the bills targeted RCID and “the Contracts specifically.”

There’s also a motion from the new CFTOD Board of Supervisors, which claims that the court should “abstain and stay this case until the validity of the Development Agreement and Restrictive Covenants are resolved in state court under state law.”

They’re arguing that the case should be dismissed and brought to Orange County Circuit Court instead of being heard at the federal level, stating that through Disney’s Restrictive Covenants agreement, the company agreed to bring any suit “arising out of or pertaining to this declaration” to the circuit court.

Not only that, but the Board is alleging that Disney’s claims fail “as a matter of law” because “the Development Agreement and Restrictive Covenants are void as a matter of Florida law and therefore have never had any legal force or existence.”

As far as the first amendment violations go, attorneys for DeSantis and the state have argued that as a principle of constitutional law, “courts cannot ‘strike down an otherwise constitutional statute on the basis of an alleged illicit motive.”

The motion states, “Disney’s First Amendment claims turn exclusively on the purported illicit motive behind Senate Bill 1604, Senate Bill 4C, House Bill 9B, and the Legislative Declaration rather than anything on the face of those measures themselves. Under the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in In re Hubbard, this fact dooms Disney’s First Amendment retaliation claims.”

Essentially, this motion argues that Disney’s First Amendment violation claims are doomed because they apply to the motive behind DeSantis’ actions and not the actions themselves.

We’ll have to wait and see whether or not the judge in the federal lawsuit approves of the state’s motion to dismiss — it’s also possible the judge approves only parts and not the entire motion. A hearing for the CFTOD’s state case against Disney is scheduled for July 14th, so it’s possible we might know more then as well.

Either way, we’ll be keeping an eye out for more updates on this ever-developing situation, so stay tuned to AllEars for more!