DeSantis' Appointees Ask Judge to Rule Against Disney in Landmark Case

 DeSantis' Appointees Ask Judge to Rule Against Disney in Landmark Case

In a landmark case, Governor Ron DeSantis' appointees to the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District (CFTOD) have asked a judge to rule against Disney without the need for a trial. The appointees are challenging a 1967 agreement that gave Disney self-governing authority over its 27,000 acres of land in central Florida, including Walt Disney World.

The appointees argue that the agreement is invalid because Disney used its power to strip the CFTOD of its authority over design and construction at Disney World. They also argue that the agreement unlawfully delegated government authority to a private entity.

If the judge rules in favor of the appointees, it would be a major victory for DeSantis and a setback for Disney. It would also raise questions about the future of Disney's self-governing authority in Florida.

Disney has argued that the agreement is valid and that it has not violated any of its terms. The company has also said that it is committed to working with the CFTOD to resolve the dispute.

The judge is expected to rule on the case in the coming weeks.

The Background of the Dispute

The dispute between DeSantis and Disney began in March 2023, when Disney CEO Bob Chapek criticized the state's new law that prohibits classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity for students in kindergarten through third grade. DeSantis responded by signing a bill that strips Disney of its special tax status in Florida. The law is expected to cost Disney billions of dollars in annual revenue.

In retaliation, Disney announced that it would suspend political donations in Florida and would work to repeal the new law. DeSantis then accused Disney of "cancel culture" and vowed to continue to fight the company.

The Legal Challenge

In May 2023, DeSantis' appointees to the CFTOD filed a lawsuit challenging the 1967 agreement that gave Disney self-governing authority over its land in central Florida. The appointees argued that the agreement is invalid because Disney used its power to strip the CFTOD of its authority over design and construction at Disney World. They also argued that the agreement unlawfully delegated government authority to a private entity.

Disney filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the agreement is valid and that it has not violated any of its terms. The company also said that it is committed to working with the CFTOD to resolve the dispute.

The judge denied Disney's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and the case is now scheduled for trial in September 2023.

The Implications of the Case

The outcome of the case could have far-reaching implications for Disney and other businesses in Florida. If the judge rules in favor of the appointees, it would mean that Disney's self-governing authority in Florida is invalid. This could lead to a number of problems for Disney, including increased regulation from the state government and the loss of its special tax status.

The case could also have implications for other businesses in Florida. If the judge rules in favor of the appointees, it could set a precedent for other businesses that have similar agreements with the state government. This could lead to a wave of lawsuits from businesses that are unhappy with their agreements with the state.

The case is also a test of the power of the state government to regulate private businesses. If the judge rules in favor of the appointees, it would mean that the state government has broad power to regulate businesses that have special agreements with the government. This could have implications for businesses across the country.

The Future of the Case

The judge is expected to rule on the case in the coming weeks. It is unclear what the judge will decide, but the case is likely to be appealed to a higher court, regardless of the outcome. The case could ultimately end up in the Supreme Court.

The dispute between DeSantis and Disney is a major political battle in Florida. It is also a test of the power of the state government to regulate private businesses. The outcome of the case could have implications for other businesses in Florida and across the country.