A federal judge has dismissed Disney’s First Amendment lawsuit against Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and others, a decision that carries potential implications for corporate speech, especially when directed at governments capable of imposing punitive measures.
Governor DeSantis, supported by GOP lawmakers, took control of Disney’s special taxing district, previously under the company’s authority, and transferred it to himself. Disney responded with a federal lawsuit, alleging that this action was retribution for its public opposition to a state law, widely known as “Don’t Say Gay,” which places restrictions on classroom instruction related to gender identity and sexual orientation. Disney argued that this retaliation violated its First Amendment rights.
On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor dismissed the lawsuit, a decision likely to prompt an appeal from Disney. The company expressed concern about the potential precedent this could set, allowing states to use their official powers to punish expressions of political viewpoints they disagree with.
In a statement provided to POLITICO, Disney said, “If left unchallenged, this would set a dangerous precedent and give license to states to weaponize their official powers to punish the expression of political viewpoints they disagree with. We are determined to press forward with our case.”
Judge Winsor, appointed by former President Donald Trump, cited a lack of standing in dismissing the claims against DeSantis and Alex Kelly, the Florida Department of Commerce secretary. Standing, in legal terms, refers to whether a party has the right to sue another.
Winsor’s decision emphasized that Disney needed to allege an imminent future injury to seek injunctive relief. He stated, “To the extent the Governor contributed to Disney’s injury by appointing CFTOD board members, that action is in the past.”
The judge also dismissed claims against district leadership “on the merits for failure to state a claim.” He cited a 2015 appellate decision, stating that when a statute is facially constitutional, a free-speech challenge cannot be based on the lawmakers’ alleged constitutionally impermissible purpose.
The state’s argument, which Winsor accepted, asserted that if a law is constitutional on its face, it doesn’t matter if it was created for retaliatory reasons. This argument drew on a previous case involving the Alabama Education Association, where lawmakers were accused of retaliation by passing a law banning payroll deductions for membership dues used for political activity.
Winsor wrote, “No one reading the text of the challenged laws would suppose them directed against Disney.” He emphasized that under the law of this Circuit, courts should not look to a law’s legislative history to find an illegitimate motivation for an otherwise constitutional statute.
While acknowledging that Disney “faces the brunt of the harm” from the law, Winsor stated that the company provided no support for its argument that the court should draw lines to determine how many others a law must cover to avoid singling out those most affected.
The district leadership included members of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District, previously known as the Reedy Creek Improvement District before the takeover, and District Administrator Glen Gilzean Jr. They have implemented controversial changes, such as abolishing the district’s diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.
Jeremy Redfern, press secretary for Governor DeSantis, welcomed the decision, stating, “The days of Disney controlling its own government and being placed above the law are long gone.”
Disney, in response, had warned in previous filings that a courtroom victory for DeSantis could open the floodgates for speech suppression, stating, “If the State’s strategy succeeds, Disney will assuredly not be the last entity punished for espousing disfavored viewpoints.”