- A federal judge denied Disney’s request to limit the scope of its lawsuit against Florida GOP Governor Ron DeSantis and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District board, focusing on alleged free speech violations related to Disney’s opposition to Florida’s Parental Rights in Education law.
- The judge’s decision allows for the possibility of Disney’s motion to be refiled after discussions with the defendants (i.e. the State of Florida) and adherence to local court rules.
- The intertwined federal and state lawsuits add complexity to the legal proceedings, centering on issues of government power, free speech, and potential retaliatory actions, creating the potential for an extended legal battle.
A federal judge late Friday denied a request by Disney to limit the scope of its lawsuit against Florida GOP Governor Ron DeSantis and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District board. Disney had sought to focus the lawsuit solely on alleged free speech violations, related to its opposition to Florida’s Parental Rights in Education law. The judge’s decision came after both sides saw their requests to dismiss other related state lawsuits denied.
Judge Allen Winsor rejected Disney’s motion late last week, stating it could be refiled after conferring with the defendants and complying with local court rules. Disney filed the federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida in April, accusing DeSantis and state officials of launching a “relentless campaign to weaponize government power” against the company for expressing an unpopular political viewpoint. DeSantis, in turn, has been pushing for the lawsuit’s dismissal while a counter-lawsuit in state court continues.
Disney’s move to narrow the federal lawsuit came after a state lawsuit filed against it by the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District was also not dismissed. The state lawsuit deals directly with the legality of agreements that Disney had previously arranged and which are also questioned in the federal case. Disney had argued that the first four claims against DeSantis and other state officials should be withdrawn without prejudice since those claims are being “actively litigated” in the pending state court action.
Disney’s federal lawsuit followed legislation signed by DeSantis that restructured the district encompassing Walt Disney World Resort, allowing the state more oversight of Disney’s extensive operations. The company alleges that these actions were retaliatory, taken after Disney publicly opposed the Parental Rights in Education law that bans classroom lessons on sexual orientation and gender identity in Kindergarten through 3rd grade. This law has been referred to by critics as the “Don’t Say Gay” policy.
Critics say that DeSantis’s reaction to Disney’s opposition was retaliatory, because, they say he pushed the changes through the Florida Legislature that appointed a new board for the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District, affecting Disney’s agreements with previous boards. If the courts agree that the actions were retaliatory, even if otherwise legal, Disney would likely to prevail in the lawsuit. But the free speech component, at least for now, won’t be the only factor considered.
The matter has led to ongoing legal challenges over the state’s intervention in the district’s governance, tying up both the federal and state court cases.
The intertwined nature of the federal and state lawsuits has complicated matters for both sides. While Disney has filed a counter-claim in the state case after its request for dismissal was denied, DeSantis and his appointees continue to challenge the legality of the company’s agreements. Both cases appear to be proceeding on separate but related tracks, setting the stage for what could be a lengthy legal battle.