The fight between The Walt Disney Corporation and the state of Florida has largely been quiet other than the courtroom skirmishes that are ongoing. But the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District (CFTOD), the board that the state legislature put in place to replace the Disney-run Reedy Creek Improvement District (RCID), filed a brief on Wednesday asking a court to abstain from or dismiss Disney’s federal lawsuit against Florida and Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.).
According to a press release from the CFTOD, the brief “also highlights the district’s recent success in foiling Disney’s attempt to ‘frustrate the will of the People of Florida’ using nullified development agreements.”
The CTFOD press release breaks down three key reasons why the court needs to abstain from or dismiss the suit, combined with quotes from the brief itself. First, the district maintains that the federal court needs to stay out of the case because it involves unsettled state law. “A state case that confirms the district’s legislative findings that Disney’s actions were void from the beginning would decide or materially alter nearly all of Disney’s federal claims,” the press release asserts.
“If the Agreements are void, Disney’s Contracts Clause claim in Count I would fail because there was no contract,” the brief states. “Its Takings claim in Count II would fail because there was no property to be taken. Its Due Process claim in Count III would fail because Disney was not deprived of anything. And its First Amendment retaliation claim in Count IV would fail because Disney suffered no adversity from actions directed at a contract without legal existence.”
Second, the CFTOD claims that the agreements and covenants Disney’s RCID board enacted on its way out the door were never valid in the first place. Even Disney admits so.
Related: The Non-Political Problems With Disney’s Theme Parks
“Disney does not dispute that, when the Development Agreement was entered, RCID lacked an ‘ordinance’ establishing ‘procedures and requirements… to consider and enter into a development agreement.’ Fla. Stat. § 163.3223,” the brief points out. “Rather, Disney argues that the Development Agreement Act, including § 163.3223, does not apply. If that were so, then RCID lacked any authority whatsoever to enter the Development Agreement (and the Restrictive Covenants that depend on it).”
Finally, the CFTOD says that Disney’s First Amendment claims are baseless since the company is taking on a sovereign state. “It is the government who determines operations of the representative government, not any one corporation,” the board states.
The brief goes into more detail:
The State of Florida holds the power to determine who will exercise ‘important elective and nonelective positions whose operations go to the heart of representative government.’ Gregory, 501 U.S. at 460 (internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, ‘[t]hrough the structure of its government, and the character of those who exercise government authority, a State defines itself as a sovereign.’ Id. at 463. ‘This rule is no more than a recognition of a State’s constitutional responsibility for the establishment and operation of its own government.’ Id. at 462 (cleaned up). The Speech Clause of the First Amendment does not constrain this exercise of State sovereignty.
The CFTOD says that this brief is the latest in its series of legal actions in the ongoing battle with Disney. All of this is taking place as the board continues to look out for the residents of the region — something the RCID board lost sight of in recent years.
“Since assuming control and declaring the development agreement void, the CFTOD and district leadership have continued to oversee the governance of the district,” the board boasts in its press release. “They have taken several actions to bring prosperity to the local community and implement overdue reforms. The board, for example, has enacted much-needed good governance policies, including one to protect whistleblowers. It also recently abolished divisive DEI programs and voted to lower the property tax rate.”
We’ll keep an eye on the proceedings and see whether this brief works out for the CFTOD. One thing is for sure: the new board isn’t going to give up on this battle with Disney.
Read the full brief here:
CFTOD DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS OR ABSTAIN by PJ Media on Scribd
Join the conversation as a VIP Member