The Disney court case against Governor Ron DeSantis in Florida has evolved from a simple criticism of law that the former passed into a web of tales that exposed a power struggle and political influence of opposing parties worthy of a TV series.
How It All Began
In March of 2022, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law the “Parental Rights in Education” bill, more commonly known as the “Don’t Say Gay Law.” This is legislation that states, “Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”
The Don’t Say Gay Law’s main purpose was to give parents authority when they introduce topics like gender identity and sexual orientation to their children. It also enables parents to sue the schools that educate their kids at an inappropriate age or developmental capacity.
Naturally, the law had so much backlash that employees from the happiest place on Earth, Disney World, spoke out and protested against it. In the beginning, the company stayed mum about their stance on the law. However, after facing criticism for not speaking out, Disney’s CEO, Bob Chapek finally took a stance against the bill. He also called DeSantis to “express our disappointment and concern” about it.
The Drama Ensues Between Disney and DeSantis
DeSantis took this stance against the law to heart and he was offended. He retaliated by asking lawmakers to create bills that would revoke Disney’s self-governing powers on its own pseudo-municipality, Reedy Creek.
Now this is important because Disney, since the 1960s, had its own municipality to facilitate running their theme park near Orlando. It was a self-governing body complete with its own police, firefighters, and funds for various repairs around the area.
It is also worth noting that Disney is Florida’s biggest taxpayer and job-makers, employing thousands and thousands of Florida citizens in their various businesses. So if the self-governing body of Reedy Creek would be dissolved, it would put around $1 billion worth of taxes on the regular taxpayers instead.
To prevent this, lawmakers conceded that Disney can keep their tax jurisdiction of the area. However, all other privileges previously afforded to the media giant will be rescinded.
Instead, DeSantis formed a five-member governing board over the former Reedy Creek district to oversee the area. This governing body will be directly reporting to him.
But Disney was one step ahead of DeSantis. Before the bill to limit their jurisdiction was even passed, the former governing board of Reedy Creek signed a contract that gave limited powers to the new board to be created by DeSantis.
The Disney Court Case
As a response to the dissolution of the Reedy Creek Improvement District, Disney filed an official suit against DeSantis and the five-member governing board.
Disney alleged that DeSantis was infringing on their first amendment rights, with CEO Bob Iger saying that the governor is in a “relentless campaign to weaponize government power against Disney in retaliation for expressing a political viewpoint.”
Furthermore, Iger called DeSantis’ actions, “not just anti-Florida but anti-business,” saying that Disney, as a company run by people, had the right to express their political views and stances on laws being passed in the state that they are a big stakeholder in.
DeSantis said in response, “They’re gonna live under the same laws as everybody else, they’re gonna pay their fair share of taxes and they’re not gonna govern themselves…and to put one corporation on a pedestal and let them be exempt from the laws is not good policy. It’s not free market economics, and it’s not something that our state’s gonna be involved in.”
As of writing, the case of Disney v. DeSantis is still ongoing. Some developments were made including DeSantis filing a motion to disqualify U.S. District Judge Mark Walker from overseeing the case on grounds of questioning his impartiality. Their question comes from the fact that Judge Walker referenced two different suits on free speech and fear of retaliation to the case of Disney against DeSantis.
Disney, on the other hand, has announced that it will no longer be continuing the construction of a new billion-dollar office space in the contested area. This new complex could have generated about 2,000 new jobs in the area.
Neither Disney nor DeSantis is backing down at this point. DeSantis’ stance remains the same, that Disney shouldn’t be enjoying exceptions and privileges from the laws of the state. Disney refutes saying that DeSantis’ actions have a chilling effect and fear of retaliation for the company simply expressing their views on a law that affects people, including many of their employees and their families.