I wonder what DeSantis’ defensive reasoning would be. He has to find some legalistic argument that would allow judges (or justices) enough cover to say “he has a point”.
Excellent explanation, thank you!
It is also noteworthy that the House of Windsor is a particularly long-lived family. The contract can be reasonably assumed to last well over 100 years.
Disney certainly seems to be trying their best to do that:
From the article linked above:
The lawsuit was filed on the same day that the district’s board of supervisors, which DeSantis had picked to take control over Disney’s Orlando-area parks, moved to undo a development deal that it says Disney struck to thwart its power.
The panel unanimously voted to declare “void and unenforceable” that development deal, which was approved shortly before DeSantis replaced the Disney-approved board with his preferred supervisors.
To the attorneys reading this:
What law is Disney using to sue the governor?
Various provisions of the U.S. Constitution: the Contracts Clause, Takings Clause, Due Process Clause, and First Amendment. Here’s the complaint:
ISTM Florida/DeSantis/board of supervisors are playing tic-tac-toe while Disney is playing 3D chess.
Clearly Disney anticipated the fuckery DeSantis and his cronies would try and had a response prepared and ready to go the instant they went there.
There is an old aphorism that if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
But, conservatives like DeSantis are notoriously opposed to education so they probably missed that one.
The problem is Disney has a very smart legal team who is only interested in doing the absolute minimum necessary to restore the status quo. Disney was smart to make a contract that neutered the board of supervisors immediately before DeSantis’s cronies took it over, and now they’re suing for relief to prevent those cronies from throwing away that contract and also suing to prevent DeSantis from dissolving the Reedy Creek Improvement District entirely. That’s it. Disney is fiercely defending their status quo and not reaching one inch beyond it.
Now, who knows what else might come out of this lawsuit, or what new error this might bait DeSantis into, but Disney isn’t really interested in anything beyond getting the government to continue to leave them alone. Complaining about how they’re being punished for their corporate views is just the cornerstone of their legal defense, since DeSantis has been so open about intentionally doing this to punish Disney. Ultimately, Disney doesn’t care about being free to express various values, they just care about expressing whatever values gets them the most money and holding onto the special rights they have over their property.
I’m anxiously awaiting the next installment of Legal Eagle’s analysis of the recent developments. His last one was from about 9 days ago.
I just heard a snippet of audio where DeSantis responded to the lawsuit.
Of course, he said it was political. And then said “there’s a reason they filed it in Tallahassee.“
you think? It’s not like he is supposed to be the governor who works in that city or anything. It does happen to be the capital of the state,
Quite so, and that is the expected basis for a corporation to act. But if on top of that you are being targeted for political speech, well, throw that in too.
Treating a development incentive as a favor to be given and taken on the spot subject to that you shut up in subservience to the politician who is in office today, devalues such development instruments not just in Florida but everywhere — something that will worry a lot of the classic probusiness conservatives. We may not like these corporate giveaways, but their elimination must happen on the merits, not as a goodie to be given or taken as a political reward or punishment.
We sure about that? What got them into this whole issue in the first place was publicly criticizing what the government of Florida was doing. That doesn’t fit the idea that all they want is for the government to leave them alone.
Don’t get me wrong, they’re a corporation and they’re looking out for themselves, of course. But sometimes activism is in a corporation’s best interests.
In this case, Disney’s employees were protesting their company’s inaction, and they saw an opportunity to satisfy employees and potentially improve their image among key demographics in the process.
Corporations will do the right thing, even take a risk in doing so, if they feel that it will ultimately be for their own benefit.
Disney criticized the government for doing things that affected them, though. And then only after the people it affected protested and insisted they do so.
If the government of Florida had not started trying to harm LGBT people, a demographic that is well represented by Disney employees and customers, Disney wouldn’t have said anything. The protest is because the government wouldn’t leave them alone.
Agreed, but a lot of what the government does will affect a company in that government’s jurisdiction. The government will never “leave a company alone”, not really. Even when laws don’t directly affect a company, they always affect people, and people are what a company is made of.
Disney took a stand for its employees when they protested. They could have instead responded by choosing to reduce diversity, that would eventually stop protests. But they’re not stupid; they know doing such a thing would probably have backfired. But tell me there aren’t companies that would have done so.
I don’t know how useful it is to say that Disney just wants the government to leave them alone. The government won’t and can’t leave them alone. The government will do things that affect the company, for good or bad, and if the bad things are bad enough, the company will act if it can, as it did.
New info. Is this legal? (as in, if challenged in court over this would the Florida government be likely to prevail?)
The rule is that you do not pass laws to abridge prior lawfully entered contractual obligations. But then again this is DeSanctimonious we’re talking about.
It kinda seems like an ex post facto law which, IIRC, is constitutionally prohibited.
Actually, the contracts clause is a provision in itself within the same constitutional language:
Article I, Section 10
No State shall … pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts…
However the precedents are that states “retain some authority to enact laws with retroactive effect that alter contractual or other legal relations among individuals and entities” and deference is shown to the state’s highest courts in interpreting this, as long as “state’s regulation of contracts, whether involving public or private parties, must generally be reasonably designed and appropriately tailored to achieve a legitimate public purpose.”
A bit off topic, but goddam I’m impressed by how DeSantis has the Florida legislature willing to absolutely kowtow to his every whim. Don’t these legislators have their own bills they want to pass? Yet every other day brings some new bill that was passed solely to benefit DeSantis’ political interests.
I’m mostly impressed because, here in Texas, Greg Abbott made school vouchers his marquee issue for the legislative session and rural Republicans in the Legislature keep giving him the finger.
I would think this means Florida has a big hill to climb but, as @flurb suggested, it seems DeSantis has a lock on the Florida government. And, I have no faith left in the US Supreme Court.
No. At least, none others than the biolerplates fed to them by ALEC, Heritage, and other such RW legislative draft mills. Or what the Gov’s team asks for.
Otherwise they may have to pass bills that actually address the specific social and economic needs of their districts and that would piss off the culture-warrior “base”.
The TX governorship is known as weak vs. those of other states when it comes to driving the agenda, those Texas rural Republicans know for a fact that Abbott will never be a contender for President, and more to the point they were already safe and entrenched before he came along and they don’t need to please him to have what they want.
(And really, the folks in Lufkin or Dalhart know that the defunding won’t just happen in Austin, Houston or El Paso once you put it in place…)
No surprise here: