Legal Battle Continues Between Florida Governor and Disney over Theme Park Autonomy
Most law firms avoid posting jobs on Indeed or LinkedIn due to high costs. Instead, they publish them on their own websites, bar association pages, and niche legal boards. LawCrossing finds these hidden jobs, giving you access to exclusive opportunities. Sign up now!
The legal battle between Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and the Walt Disney Company continues, with legal experts suggesting that DeSantis' previous verbal attacks against Disney might come back to hurt him in court. The company is suing DeSantis to prevent the state from ending its virtual autonomy in central Florida, where its theme parks are located. Last year, Disney criticized a Florida law that banned classroom discussion of sexuality and gender identity with younger children, which prompted DeSantis to attack the company. The lawsuit filed by Disney contains warnings from DeSantis' memoir, fundraising material, and interviews that suggest the governor's actions against the company were politically motivated. Ken Paulson, a Middle Tennessee State University professor, said DeSantis might pay for his attacks on Disney in court. DeSantis has called the lawsuit a politically motivated attack and accused Disney of lacking accountability.
Legal experts suggest that Governor DeSantis may have legitimate policy reasons to reconstitute the authority formerly known as Reedy Creek Improvement District. Still, the company would have a strong case if Disney could prove that it was done in retaliation for their criticism. Last year, Disney spoke out against the Parental Rights in Education Act that banned discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity for young students. DeSantis returned by seizing control of the special district that helped develop Disney World. Disney's lawsuit claims that the state adopted a "targeted campaign of government retaliation — orchestrated at every step by Governor DeSantis as punishment for Disney's protected speech." Disney would have to show a connection between their comments and the development district changes, now renamed the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District to prevail.
In summary, legal experts believe that if Disney can demonstrate that the changes made by Governor DeSantis to the Reedy Creek Improvement District were made as retaliation for the company's protected speech, the entertainment giant would have a strong case. While DeSantis may argue that Florida is entitled to change the unique tax benefits given to Disney, Leslie Kendrick, director of the Center for the First Amendment at the University of Virginia School of Law, said that "First Amendment law would say that is problematic if it's done because of the speaker's protected speech." Examples of retaliation for political speech often involve state employees, and history and context will play an essential role in determining the lawsuit's outcome.
Gain an advantage in your legal job search. LawCrossing uncovers hidden positions that firms post on their own websites and industry-specific job boards—jobs that never appear on Indeed or LinkedIn. Don't miss out. Sign up now!