Media Group Backs Disney in Its Legal Fight Against DeSantis
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit group, says state retaliation against the entertainment company violated the First Amendment.
July 31, 2023 at 10:25 AM
4 minute read
A group representing journalists is supporting Walt Disney Parks and Resorts in a federal-court fight against Gov. Ron DeSantis, saying state retaliation against the entertainment company violated the First Amendment.
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit group, filed court documents Friday arguing that U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor should reject a state request to dismiss a lawsuit that is part of a long-running feud between DeSantis and Disney.
The feud stems from Disney's opposition to a 2022 state law that restricted instruction about gender identity and sexual orientation in public schools. Disney filed a federal lawsuit in April, alleging, in part, that the state had improperly retaliated against it.
"Here, the government conduct in question targets a public company, but if the state of Florida and its officials succeed in defending their actions against Disney in this case, governments across the country may be emboldened to take action against not only public companies, but journalists, reporters, and the greater news media when they exercise their First Amendment freedoms," lawyers for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press wrote in one of the documents filed Friday.
The federal-court filings came on the same day that an Orange County circuit judge refused a request by Disney to dismiss a separate lawsuit filed in May by the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District.
DeSantis and Republican lawmakers this year created the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District to replace the Reedy Creek Improvement District, which Disney had effectively controlled for decades. DeSantis also was given the power to appoint board members for the revamped special district.
In the Orange County lawsuit, the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District is seeking a ruling that development agreements reached by Disney and the former Reedy Creek board are "null and void." The agreements were approved shortly before the switch to the Central Florida Tourism Oversight board.
Orange County Circuit Judge Margaret Schreiber on Friday issued a 14-page decision denying a Disney request to dismiss the case or put it on hold until the federal lawsuit is resolved.
In the federal lawsuit, Disney alleged constitutional violations rooted in retaliation by DeSantis and his political allies. A key issue is a state law passed this spring invalidating the disputed development agreements between Disney and the former Reedy Creek board.
Attorneys for the state filed a motion June 26 seeking dismissal of the federal lawsuit on a series of grounds and took aim at what they described as a "sweetheart deal" that Disney enjoyed with the Reedy Creek district, which the state created in the 1960s. The motion said the state determined that Reedy Creek needed reform.
"Local taxes? Disney set them," the motion said. "Building and safety codes? Disney set those, too. Caps on land development? Disney made the final call. Disney could exercise eminent domain, permitting it to annex territory even outside the District's borders, all without legislative approval. It could build and operate an airport, or even a nuclear power plant."
Disney is fighting the motion to dismiss the case and was backed Friday by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which requested approval to file a friend-of-the-court brief.
The request and the accompanying brief focused on the possibility of a broader threat of retaliation against journalists or businesses that anger governments. The brief said DeSantis and other defendants are asking the court "to depart from fundamental First Amendment precedent that prohibits government retaliation against a private speaker for commentary perceived by the state as critical — as defendants have done here."
"This is a significant First Amendment case," the brief said. "One of the world's largest companies has alleged that a state openly acted to punish it for speaking out on issues of public concern — and the state has admitted as much."
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250