Disney World vs. DeSantis (Trial Scheduling Update)
Walt Disney World is suing Ron DeSantis and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District (CFTOD) board members that the Florida Governor appointed. This post covers allegations of the lawsuit, plus developments from the meeting of the CFTOD that precipitated this litigation. (Updated June 28, 2023.)
It’s been a relatively quiet month in the battle of Disney vs. DeSantis, probably in part because the presidential aspirant is focusing his campaign on highly-educated and libertarian-leaning New Hampshire and culture wars don’t play as well there as, say, Iowa. In part, it’s also because the wheels of justice grind slowly, so there isn’t going to be big breaking news about this as often as, say, changes to the Genie+ service.
To the latter point, the court scheduling briefing is in for the lawsuit. Disney is requesting a trial date in July 2024, whereas DeSantis is seeking an August 2025 trial. Obviously, a year-plus gap is pretty significant. More notably, Disney’s date is in the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election, whereas the DeSantis date is after that. Let’s start by breaking that down…
First of all, neither of these requests are unreasonable. Given the complexity of the case and its many moving parts, Disney’s timeline is a bit aggressive or expedited, whereas DeSantis’s is a bit on the slow side–but neither request strikes me as glaringly atypical. Either way, this case will be brought to resolution faster than Disney has filled in EPCOT’s Giant Dirt Pit.
It’s a common refrain that the American justice system moves too slowly–and there’s certainly room for improvement. However, there’s also the reality that cases are more complex than they appear to laypeople, and there’s good reason for the methodical pace–especially when more than two parties are involved. Discovery, depositions, and other pretrial motions all take time to schedule and complete, and those 30-day response windows (assuming no motions to extend) quickly add up.
From my perspective, these requested trial dates simply reaffirm our past commentary about this case and the whole standoff between the state and Disney. The company wants this over as quickly as possible, as they “lose” the longer that the case drags on and continues to make headlines. We’ve already seen that with Disney’s Reputation Falling Further in public opinion polling.
By contrast, DeSantis likely wants to drag this fight out while it’s politically advantageous during the GOP primary. (Those in the pro-Disney “bubble” may underestimate just how well this is playing with Republican voters, with a clear majority supporting DeSantis in this battle against Disney per polling.)
However, that’s only true of polling among the base. If DeSantis ends up campaigning for the general election, he will pivot on this, as polling also shows that it’s a loser among the broader population. That means not trumpeting his fight with companies, and certainly trying to avoid headlines about being in court with them right during the heart of campaign season.
In my view, that’s what both of these scheduling requests reflect. Once again, it’s about optics above all else. Disney seeking an accelerated schedule is not necessarily conclusive of confidence in their case–it’s about wanting to put it in the rearview mirror as expeditiously as possible. DeSantis wanting to delay isn’t due to fears that he’ll fail in court–it’s about concerns that the case itself will damage his election prospects. (Aside from pride, winning or losing here is almost immaterial to him–there are no meaningful consequences.)
Prior to the scheduling development, this month’s other major development is that Judge Mark E. Walker recused himself. He disqualified himself due to a relative within the third degree of relationship owns thirty shares of stock in Disney. As a result, the case has been reassigned to Judge Allen C. Winsor. This is a meaningful development because Walker was generally viewed as more favorable to Disney based on recent decisions.
Additionally, Walt Disney Parks & Resorts filed its First Amended Complaint last month. In that, Disney argues that the recently-passed and signed into law Senate Bill 1604 was drafted such that it would target only contracts between Reedy Creek Improvement District (RCID) and the Walt Disney Company.
Disney contends that “Governor DeSantis and his allies have no apparent intent to moderate their retaliatory campaign any time soon,” and the amended complaint cites several (additional) instances of Florida politicians advancing the legislation voluntarily admitting that they were targeting Walt Disney World, punishing the company for its speech, and using them to set an example for other companies.
The amended complaint also takes aim at an amendment added to a Senate transportation bill (later substituted as House Bill 1305) that would give the state the ability to regulate, and even shut down, the Walt Disney World monorail system. “The proposed amendment was precision-engineered to target Disney alone…imposing state oversight over only those private monorail systems located ‘within an independent special district created by local act which have boundaries within two contiguous counties,” the lawsuit alleges. “Disney is the only company affected by House Bill 1305.”
Beyond the additional legislation, Disney pointed to statements made by DeSantis during a press conference commemorating the end of the Florida Legislative session. After being asked about how he was “handling” the Reedy Creek situation, without hesitation or prompting, Governor DeSantis admitted: “[T]his all started, of course,with our parents’ rights bill.”
The lawsuit further alleges that “Governor DeSantis trumpeted the unequivocal intent and perceived success of his retribution campaign: ‘Since our skirmish last year, Disney has not been involved in any of those issues. They have not made a peep. That, ultimately, is the most important, that Disney is not allowed to pervert the system to the detriment of Floridians.'”
In terms of commentary about the amended complaint, we’ll reiterate that the punishment is the point. It may seem like a comedy of errors with DeSantis and his allies are giving the game away with these dozens of public statements that they’re retaliating against Walt Disney World with this legislation as it weakens their legal position.
In reality, that’s the entire end game. Had Governor DeSantis woken up one day in early 2020 and come to the conclusion that RCID needed to be eliminated or replaced for some boring procedural or administrative reason, no one would have cared. Walt Disney World might have lobbied against it, and the local newspapers and fan-centric blogs would’ve picked up the story, but it would not be making the nightly news on a regular basis for over a year. The vast majority of the public wouldn’t hear about it, and probably wouldn’t have an opinion even if they did.
This is only making the mainstream news and raising the profile of Governor DeSantis because it’s controversial. There’s literally no other reason why this is a major story. The retaliatory angle and what people think of that, for better or worse, is it.
As noted in the amended complaint, DeSantis recently boasted about how Disney has “not made a peep” since the skirmish last year. That’s certainly a clever card for him to play, intimating that he’s won in the way that counts most. However, I suspect that he would actually far prefer Disney clumsily voicing opinions on more pending Florida legislation, as that would give him more red meat for the base. (And to be sure, Bob Iger has responded to DeSantis’s statements and actions, and the amended complaint’s allegations also serve as statements, but some of that is probably better left ignored.)
Turning back to the original complaint, we’ll start with the CFTOD meeting that precipitated Walt Disney World filing suit against the governor and board. During this meeting, the new district’s Board of Supervisors declared that the Development Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants entered into by and between the (former) Reedy Creek Improvement District (RCID) and Walt Disney Parks & Resorts was void and unenforceable.
The new CFTOD board asserted that these agreements between Disney and RCID–which made national news for use of the “King Charles Clause” and other fanciful expressions–rendered them powerless to offer any oversight over Walt Disney World’s tourist district, effectively undermining their very name. They’ve repeatedly called these eleventh-hour, last-minute, or clandestine covenants that were made unlawfully, that they have numerous legal deficiencies, and were a subversion of the will of Florida voters, among many other claims.
The Central Florida Tourism Oversight District Board of Supervisors also approved the “Superior Authority” amendment at the same meeting today. This essentially does what the name suggests, giving the new board final decision-making authority for the District and declaring that no further administrative appeal is available for decisions made by said board.
The new board chair argued during the meeting that Disney was the one to pick this fight with his board,” and claimed that the board was not looking for a fight. But also that, factually and legally, what Disney created is an “absolute legal mess, and will not work.” With that, the board approved findings by its general counsel, declared the company’s February 8 agreements with RCID legally void and unenforceable, and moved to have them stricken from the public records of Osceola and Orange Counties.
That brings us to the juicier development, which is that Walt Disney Parks & Resorts has filed suit against Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. In addition, also names Meredith Ivey, Acting Secretary of the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity; as well as Central Florida Tourism Oversight District Board Members: Martin Garcia, Michael Sasso, Brian Aungst, Ron Peri, Bridget Ziegler, and Administrator John Classe.
In the 77-page lawsuit filed with the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Florida, Disney Parks & Resorts alleges “a targeted campaign of government retaliation—orchestrated at every step by Governor DeSantis as punishment for Disney’s protected speech—now threatens Disney’s business operations, jeopardizes its economic future in the region, and violates its constitutional rights.”
“Today’s action is the latest strike: At the Governor’s bidding, the State’s oversight board has purported to “void” publicly noticed and duly agreed development contracts, which had laid the foundation for billions of Disney’s investment dollars and thousands of jobs. This government action was patently retaliatory, patently anti-business, and patently unconstitutional,” Disney alleges in the lawsuit.
The lawsuit continues: “…the Governor and his allies have made clear they do not care and will not stop. The Governor recently declared that his team would not only ‘void the development agreement’–just as they did today–but also planned ‘to look at things like taxes on the hotels,’ ‘tolls on the roads,’ ‘developing some of the property that the district owns’ with ‘more amusement parks,’ and even putting a ‘state prison’ next to Walt Disney World. ‘Who knows? I just think the possibilities are endless,’ [Florida Governor DeSantis] said.”
“Disney regrets that it has come to this. But having exhausted efforts to seek a resolution, the Company is left with no choice but to file this lawsuit to protect its cast members, guests, and local development partners from a relentless campaign to weaponize government power against Disney in retaliation for expressing a political viewpoint unpopular with certain State officials.”
“Governor DeSantis and his allies paid no mind to the governing structure that facilitated Reedy Creek’s successful development until one year ago, when the Governor decided to target Disney. There is no room for disagreement about what happened here: Disney expressed its opinion on state legislation and was then punished by the State for doing so.”
“Governor DeSantis announced that Disney’s statement had ‘crossed the line’ —a line evidently separating permissible speech from intolerable speech—and launched into a barrage of threats against the Company in immediate response,” the lawsuit continues. It further alleges that DeSantis and his allies have since “moved beyond threats to official action, employing the machinery of the State in a coordinated campaign to damage Disney’s ability to do business in Florida.”
The lawsuit points out that state leaders have “not been subtle” about their reasons for taking retaliatory action against Disney. DeSantis and co. have declared that Disney “deserves” this because of the substance of the company’s statements.
Disney further states that it never sought a fight with the Florida government, and attempt to de-escalate for nearly a year, attempting a productive dialogue with DeSantis, all to no avail. Against that backdrop of uncertainty, Disney and RCID gave public notice that the parties would enter into contracts to secure future development for Walt Disney World. The company alleges that those contracts implemented a comprehensive plan for RCID that DeSantis had found compliant with Florida law only months earlier.
Disney characterized the developer agreement as standard and unsurprising, consistent with other land use agreements between developers and local regulars. The company contends that, “contrary to misunderstandings and mischaracterizations,” they do not undermine the CFTOD’s ability to govern and exercise its authority.
Disney argues that it is a clear violation of the company’s rights for the CFTOD board to declare its own legally binding contracts void and unenforceable, and as such, Disney seeks relief to carry out its long-held business plans.
The company further contends that it is “forced to defend itself against a State weaponizing its power to inflict political punishment” as a “clear violation of Disney’s federal constitutional rights” under the Contracts Clause, Takings Clause, Due Process Clause, and the First Amendment.”
“Disney finds itself in this regrettable position because it expressed a viewpoint the Governor and his allies did not like. Disney wishes that things could have been resolved a different way. But Disney also knows that it is fortunate to have the resources to take a stand against the State’s retaliation—a stand smaller businesses and individuals might not be able to take when the State comes after them for expressing their own views. In America, the government cannot punish you for speaking your mind.”
Deeper in the lawsuit, the company cites dozens of examples of Governor DeSantis voluntarily admitting that he was retaliating against Disney for expressing disfavored viewpoints. It cites his campaign emails soliciting donations, public interviews and speeches, social media posts, and even DeSantis’s recent memoir.
There are countless examples of this–they form the bulk of the 77-page complaint. Even as someone who has been following this saga closely and heard the heated rhetoric, some of the statements made by DeSantis and his allies are absurdly inflammatory and downright unsettling. Stuff I’d expect to hear from Jonah Ryan, not real politicians.
Ultimately, Disney seeks that the court declare that the Legislative Declaration is unlawful and unenforceable because it abrogates Disney’s rights in violation of the Contracts Clause, Takings Clause, Due Process Clause, and because it was enacted in retaliation for Disney’s speech in violation of the First Amendment.
Disney further seeks that the court declare that the Development Agreement (etc.) remain in effect and enforceable, that Florida Senate Bill 4C and House Bill 9B are unlawful and unenforceable because they were enacted in retaliation for Disney’s political speech in violation of the First Amendment, and that the Defendants be enjoined from enforcing the aforementioned bills and Legislative Declaration.
In a nutshell, Walt Disney World is seeking to undo the renaming of the Reedy Creek Improvement District into the Central Florida Tourism Oversight Development District, which would by extension result in the replacement of the DeSantis appointees on that board.
Additionally or alternatively, Disney is seeking to preserve the Development Agreement (etc.) from February 8, and to prevent Florida from taking further action to supersede those contracts or otherwise punish the company.
Other politicians have spoken out about the battle between Disney and DeSantis, including members of the governor’s own party. An interesting piece in the Wall Street Journal shared that some Republicans are saying privately that the governor’s approach looks increasingly like a personal vendetta and heavy-handed government intervention into the affairs of one of the state’s largest employers. The paper also pointed out that DeSantis has seen erosion in support among GOP state lawmakers as result, with several allies from Florida’s congress publicly endorsing former President Trump.
“Disney is really acting in a way that we’d expect most free-market actors would act. Companies always push back and find a way to respond to aggressive regulation,” Republican state Rep. Spencer Roach, told the WSJ. “I think the governor is right, but I’m not sure at this point that the public is with us, and I would urge the governor to be cautious as he goes on with this fight with Disney.”
This is notable because Roach was one of the earliest advocates of the Reedy Creek dissolution, helping to spearhead the legislation early-on. (He’s cited twice in Disney’s complaint!) So it’s particularly interesting to see he and other once-vocal critics of Disney go quiet or publicly distance themselves from the ongoing battle.
Less surprising is the reaction of others against whom DeSantis will square off in the 2024 GOP presidential primary. Trump weighed in by saying that DeSantis “is being absolutely destroyed by Disney” and called the governor’s move a “political stunt.” He hasn’t commented on the latest development, but he’ll undoubtedly seize upon the lawsuit at some point.
Nikki Haley weighed in and said that her home state would “happily accept” if Disney wanted to move its hundreds of thousands of jobs to South Carolina and bring billions of dollars in revenue with them, noting that South Carolina is “not woke, but we’re not sanctimonious about it either.” She is just one of several 2024 candidates who have commented thus far.
It should go without saying, but Walt Disney World is not going to pack up and move to another state–this isn’t Theme Park Tycoon. Haley and other politicians don’t think they will, either. As with so much of this, it’s theatrics or political posturing. By all accounts, the company is playing the long game with an eye towards its long-term future in Florida.
Nevertheless, it’s interesting to see other Republicans distancing themselves from DeSantis on this issue, or smelling blood in the water. Our commentary on two different past posts (here and here) largely revolved around that angle of the battle, questioning whether DeSantis has overplayed his hand, or made a miscalculation in continuing to push this once Iger returned.
It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out from here. Now that the battle between Disney and DeSantis has escalated beyond the court of public opinion to an actual court, the eventual outcome should be more predictable as a matter of law. Even then, this probably isn’t as cut and dry as some analysts are making it out to be.
We’d also caution against premature conclusions about how the ‘political theater’ side of the standoff will continue. One thing that has been particularly telling throughout this saga is that DeSantis and his allies have not at all attempted to maintain a veneer of plausible deniability.
No matter where you stand on this debate, it’s patently obvious that taking away Reedy Creek was occurring in direct response to Chapek’s statements last spring about pending Florida legislation. But for Chapek voicing an opinion, no one on DeSantis’s side of the aisle would’ve introduced legislation to replace the Reedy Creek Improvement District.
Additionally, no matter what you think of him, DeSantis is an intelligent and savvy political operator. It’s not like he (repeatedly) misspoke and accidentally let the underlying motivation for all of this slip. The punishment was the point, and signaling the same to supporters–and other businesses–was purposeful and deliberate.
This story never would’ve dominated the national news if Florida simply dissolved or replaced Reedy Creek during legislature’s ordinary course of business, with the simple explanation that more government oversight was desired. It would’ve been boring and no one would’ve cared. Framing it as retaliation was necessary for campaigning, fundraising, and making television appearances.
There’s no reason to expect that Walt Disney World filing this lawsuit will change the calculus for DeSantis and friends. In all likelihood, they will only escalate further, not de-escalate or defer now that there’s an actual pending legal matter. Just as the punishment was the point, so too is the battle the point.
Even as Disney is using the statements of the governor and board members in support of its allegations, the aforementioned individuals do not have any legal incentive to quiet down and let this matter be resolved by the courts. Disney is suing DeSantis and the CFTOD board in their official capacities. They have nothing to lose, personally, by continuing to plead their case and make waves in public. The only thing that will change the approach is if continuing the fight with Disney polls poorly.
As we’ve said before, this is not about the law, passing meaningful legislation, the tough and thankless work of local governance, or doing what’s best for constituents. It’s simply self-serving political theater. When viewed through that prism, “winning” is more about the ongoing culture wars than it is as a matter of law. The goal isn’t to govern; it’s to grab headlines, dominate the news cycle, and score points with the base in the current era of politics as a team sport. Again, these are not serious people with sincere motivations.
Planning a Walt Disney World trip? Learn about hotels on our Walt Disney World Hotels Reviews page. For where to eat, read our Walt Disney World Restaurant Reviews. To save money on tickets or determine which type to buy, read our Tips for Saving Money on Walt Disney World Tickets post. Our What to Pack for Disney Trips post takes a unique look at clever items to take. For what to do and when to do it, our Walt Disney World Ride Guides will help. For comprehensive advice, the best place to start is our Walt Disney World Trip Planning Guide for everything you need to know!
YOUR THOUGHTS
If you’ve read all or part of Walt Disney World’s lawsuit against Florida Governor Ron DeSantis & Friends, what’s your take on the allegations and support thereof? Any reaction to the latest season of the Reedy Creek Improvement District drama? Hope this escalating battle starts to de-escalate soon so we can focus again on the fun of the parks? Keep the comments civil, and avoid personal attacks or perpetuating pointless culture wars. Respectfully debating the change is totally fine, but don’t attack others or troll for controversy. That’s why Facebook was invented.
It’s really insanity the way Ron DeSantis has behaved. This is what happens when gerrymandering leads to super majorities and these unqualified radical extremists get elected to office with unchecked power.
The FIRST AMENDMENT explicitly protects speaking out against the government and government legislation. And we know from Citizens United that corporations are people too.
DeSantis is behaving like a COMMUNIST dictator NOT a conservative (at least from the definition of 15-20 years ago). He will lose his lawsuit and cost the taxpayers $$$. How about legislation that Ron and his GQP clowns have to personally pay any and all legal fees and awards spawning from their illegal behavior ?
Personally I’m excited that there are conservatives, or groups of anyone for that matter, planning to boycott Disney. Maybe I won’t have to spend hundreds on Lightning Lanes with hopes at a chance to ride a ride. Please boycott because Disney practiced their first amendment right so that I can ride rides!
Hahaha well they’ve supposedly been boycotting Disney for a while now (seriously anytime Disney’s stock drops the slightest bit they live to crow about how much effect they’re having, while ignoring stock hikes, of course–pretty much the same thing they’re doing now with Bud Light)–obviously that hasn’t translated to shorter lines so the effectiveness (or you know, if they’re actually doing it and not just giving lip service) is doubtful at best.
I love the pictures too, but there’s one I can’t figure out. Can someone explain the 4th to last pic, right before the words “in a nutshell?” It’s called seven-dwarfs-mine-train-genie-plus-magic-kingdom-disney-world-720.jpg
The critter is named, but it’s taking a nap with Sleepy. I believe the joke is that Tom thinks that he may be droning on and on, lulling us to sleep. (While I personally didn’t find it that way, I did enjoy the joke regardless.)
Thank you! I see it now! I love the new one with Pooh’s bum sticking out of the tree. Somebody got themselves in a hole they can’t get out of.
I’m a Florida voter and when DeSantis talks about what the voters want in his little squabble with the Mouse, he should know that not ALL voters support his agenda.
The definition of “woke” is any idea, belief system or lifestyle that you don’t agree with. Therefore you are “woke” and you must be crushed.
And all you people wanting to boycott Disney, I am completely supportive of that. I just want to know the exact dates of the boycott because I plan to be at the parks everyday that you are not.
Tom- I saw you quoted in an NBC article about this subject today. I was touched when you said you’re “fortunate to have a following of thoughtful people who express themselves respectfully even when disagreeing.” May we always remain that way! Thank you for being a great moderator and voice of reason.
Awesome coverage in the NBC article! It’s a sign of the great job you’re doing on this site.
Thank you all for the kind words!
Very much agree! Appreciate you, Tom and Sarah! Your work has really blessed my time at Disney!
I wish I had the confidence to believe with conviction that this would turn out the way it should. But the system is so unrecognizable anymore I can’t get my hopes up.
This is no doubt a fairly blatant retaliation by Governor Desantis against Disney. Bob Chapek’s comments were objectively dumb on a business level because they further unnecessarily alienated part of the fan base and mischaracterized legislation, but they were within Disney’s rights to say in light of Citizens United and a stand that many would argue was moral for Disney to take.
Cut past that for a second and look at this through a more apolitical/alegal macro-level lens. Disney has enjoyed a special privileged status at the sufferance of the State of Florida and the leaders its voters install at any given time. Part of that deal involved Disney providing certain benefits to the State, relevant counties, and the people of Florida. Disney has provided some of those benefits: jobs, tax revenue, infrastructure, putting Orlando on the map, *mostly* being self sufficient, etc. Disney has not provided other benefits it promised: a functioning technologically advanced city subsidized by the park for the benefit of all Floridians, affordable housing to the community, reasonable pay and benefits for all employees so that those employees don’t have to rely on local and state governments for assistance in living a middle class lifestyle. For years, decades even, a strong minority of folks (including many locals) have been screaming that Disney broke their part of the covenant when they got privileged status in Florida that came with countless perks other competitors do not enjoy. You got folks saying Disney could go to Tallahassee, ask for anything, and never have to worry about putting back into the community what they promised to give. Frankly, I am personally torn regarding whether Disney should continue to have these perks. Disney is not abiding by the terms or intent of what I will call the Reedy Creek compact even though Florida still gets a decent number of perks.
I can say for certain that, the 2022 bill completely aside, Disney has never been shy about throwing its weight around to influence the Florida government to the detriment of many Floridians and the benefit of the Disney Stockholders/executives even as they stand in breach of written, spoken, and implied actual and social contracts. A few questions then:
1. Does the Florida Government have the right to pull the plug on Disney’s privileged status which keeps Disney in a better and more privileged position than any other landowner, business, or citizen in the state of Florida?
2. If so, are there circumstances under which the State of Florida cannot pull that plug and make Disney equal to everyone else in the State?
3. If those circumstances include DeSantis and other official’s comments, is every government official who supported and facilitated stripping Disney of privileged status also bound by DeSantis’ political ambitions and words? Does having the same end goal as DeSantis, making Disney just another business and property owner in Florida, mean everyone’s actions must be invalidated because of Desantis’ political speech suppression? A lot more people are involved in facilitating this than one bomb thrower and his close companions.
From my perspective Disney broke the compact they made with Florida a long time ago and has still been blatantly throwing around their political weight anyway year after year on issue after issue. I think the Florida government could have called off Disney’s special privileges at any time for nearly any reason and made them equal to the rest of the state.
I don’t think that Disney’s breaches are a good reason to shoot the goose that laid the golden egg and I think Desantis’ reason for stripping Disney is bad and at least borderline unconstitutional under current precedent, but maybe Disney shouldn’t have spent the last few decades strutting around like they owned the state and took for granted that at the end of the day their privileges exist at the pleasure of the State Government. Desantis, whose appointees basically own the High Court in Florida and in the Legislature, has plenty of institutional insurance to make this more painful for Disney than I think anyone anticipates. Considering the current SCOTUS line-up I am not sure Disney has the winning legal hand everyone thinks they do if this even if this stays federal. These are unique and untested circumstances which makes everything from hereon a dice roll and Ron Desantis is currently the casino boss. You know what they say, if you end up gambling enough you may win a few rounds, but the house always comes out on top.
But maybe Disney will win. We’ll see if I eat crow or note in the next few years.
To answer your questions in a roundabout way, Florida wouldn’t have had any issue had it replaced/renamed RCID for good reason or even no reason. The problem arises when it’s in retaliation for constitutionally protected speech. If DeSantis and co. had done this quietly at some other time and only offered legal justifications for doing so, they would’ve been fine. I’m not sure what you’re getting at with #3; it’s not like anyone is going to be “punished” for this.
I could be wrong, but I wouldn’t expect the Supreme Court to hear this case even if either party attempts to take it that far on appeal. It’ll go to the 11th Circuit first, which will likely affirm the lower court’s decision.
Curious on your take on how this all fits into the once proposed move of thousands of staff and Disney back office operations from California to Lake Nona Florida.
“Curious on your take on how this all fits into the once proposed move of thousands of staff and Disney back office operations from California to Lake Nona Florida.”
My guess is that it only ends up delaying the timeline on that a bit, but it has already been delayed a few times.
Outside chance Disney ditches that plan completely, but I think waiting out this litigation is the more likely play. Disney ultimately wants to expand in Florida; the company just wants to do so on its terms.
I don’t think it is a matter of punishment. I think its a matter of plenty of state reps and state senators out there without big public profiles and big mouths could hold that they voted on the bill for grounds beyond the one DeSantis is on about and that just because DeSantis may be a bad actor it does not mean the bill is a bad act or that Disney should retain its privileged position at the expense of the taxpayers, other property owners, and other corporations trying to compete with Disney. I don’t necessarily think it would be a good faith argument in light of everything else that has happened, I just think it could be a legitimate one for lawsuit purposes. My thought is that Disney isn’t losing a common right or generally publicly available service or specific work contract or something like that through government retaliation, they are losing a special self-governance behemoth fairly unique to them whose terms involved Disney completing certain and providing certain services which were never provided over the past half-century. I would think the argument would be “Disney has acted in bad faith and can’t now complain that a selection of government official within a larger group are acting in bad faith against them.”
I certainly don’t think this will go to SCOTUS any time soon. I just think that both sides are weighty enough and this is a unique enough issue that the losing side in district and appeals court would take it all the way up because of sunk-cost. I could also see SCOTUS taking this case if that happened and I don’t know that it would go well for Disney because of the uniqueness of this case, Disney’s past breaches of the agreement, what I think is an argument that Desantis’ bad intention can’t necessarily be spread to every state senator and house rep, and because of the current SCOTUS lineup.
As an aside I also think this whole mess has been a great example of the dangers of the sunk cost fallacy because both sides keep plunging in deeper when both should have just let it go early on. Both have been acting in bad faith and without regard to the fact that neither have clean hands in this matter, both keep increasing the damage of either side “losing” the longer they escalate, and the longer they escalate the more they have to lose by conceding. The whole state of Florida also loses of course since Disney is probably alienating more and more right-leaning customers (tax revenue) as well as a fairly strong presidential contender (putting aside whether you or I want him as president) and plenty of Floridians are watching their tax money go to insane attorney fees on a fight many probably don’t want to sponsor. Maybe this backfires more on DeSantis politically, but I think Disney is losing more long term and that DeSantis knows it. Disney could win the legal battle and make DeSantis look a fool, but still lose millions of customers and look fairly hypocritical for picking this fight with Florida in light of all the human rights fights they have waived participating in when it comes to countries like China.
Maybe this is more straightforward than I am making it, but I just think these facts are too unique.
I think Disney should just start looking for a new home and the see how DeSantis behaves.
1800 other special tax districts and ONLY this one is being targeted? That’s Chinese communist or Russian state authoritarian behavior.
Disney and any other company has the right to speak on behalf of their employees. As we all predicted, Ron’s “Don’t say gay law” didn’t stop with the K-3 graders they’ve now implemented it all the way through high school. Imaging telling 18 yo they can’t have discussions about gay classmates…
Brilliant Analysis
This lawsuit and its eventual outcome does not hinge upon the underlying legislation (HB 1557) last year. I understand that was the catalyst for everything that has transpired since–and the two topics are intertwined as a result.
However, the topics can be separated–and if the comments are going to remain open here, they MUST be separated. There’s no need to relitigate that legislation (or its follow-up) to discuss what has arisen since that is germane to Walt Disney World. The standoff has evolved well beyond HB 1557.
(In my best Jackie Gleason voice) What do the Germans have to do with this? (Couldn’t resist throwing out the Smokey and the Bandit reference)
Great article and great comments everyone! One thing everyone needs to understand is the original bill was up the 3rd grade, BUT, in true fashion of how these people operate, in a closed boardroom they have already changed to include all the way to 12th Grade! Without saying as much as a word, so undercover that even their own supporters still don’t know?
Many comments still elude to the original Bill, “no one argues that you should be teaching sex to third graders!” Okay, but what about high school seniors??!! Really?? You think kids today get sex ed from school anyway?? Move out from under that rock you have been living under.
At the end of the day Disney is a business that promotes inclusiveness and understanding. Meatball Ron is a well educated IDIOT that peddles hate, divisiveness, and power mongering. That’s why he is dropping in the poles of his own party before he even announces his candidacy. His clown show will not play well on a national stage.
Lots of legal misinfortion here (although I know the truth doesn’t matter to some). Disney can claim free speech violations due to the Supreme Court decision on Citizens United in 2010. Oversimplified, this grants corporations the same rights as American citizens, including free speech. The irony here, and what makes this case so great, is Citizens United was filed by conservatives and was considered a conservative win. Now, Disney will use that ruling to claim free speech. They are entitled to this and they have a great case and will more than likely be successful.
– From a lawyer (but not legal advice)
***Tom***
The political debate aside . . .
Did you see page 44 of the Complaint, #120: “ . . . Down to the square foot, the maximum development program specifies how much mixed-use commercial space for offices and retail/restaurants Disney can build through 2032. The maximum development program also approves one additional major theme park and two additional minor theme parks for construction through 2032.”
Are we getting a peek into Disney’s development plans for a 5th gate and 2 park additions??
That came out at the beginning of the year as part of the long-term land use plan. I wouldn’t read anything into it. The plan gives Disney the ability to build those things (see “can” and “maximum”) but not the obligation. There’s no reason to believe Disney intends to build a fifth gate (or more water parks) in Florida–every sign so far points to existing park expansion. This plan is simply very early groundwork laying for future development opportunities.
Maybe they’ll build the 5th gate in South Carolina!?
Tom, I’m particularly curious what you think about the closing of Splash Mountain, which had something like five times as many people sign the petition to keep it as signed the petition to scrap it.
Why on earth would anybody sign a petition to ask Disney to do something it’s already announced it’s doing? What a lacking metric to gauge support. Entirely disingenuous.
The roughly 20,000 people who signed the petition to close Splash Mountain did so BEFORE Disney had said they would do so. Then nearly 100,000 people signed the petition to keep it open. Closing this beloved ride was not something the public wanted. Nor did people ask the parks to banish “Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah.” This is Disney being political, at the expense of profits, the public, and the company’s celebrated past. It’s a real waste.
I just don’t understand anyone thinking a corporation does anything like refurbishing a ride for political reasons. It was an IP for a movie that hasn’t been available to the public for 30 years (through legal means), so they updated it to push a different IP.
Look at the refurbishment of Peter Pan just a couple of years ago (I believe the Splash Mountain refurb was planned before PP but I could be wrong). If Disney were truly ‘woke’ the Native Americans in that ride would have been either removed or refitted to something a little more realistic. Instead they weren’t changed at all, and I would argue they are more offensive than anything in Splash Mountain.
Not everything a company does is political whether you want it to be or not. This one is way more simple than people are attempting to make it out to be. The ride was badly in need of refurbishment, so they updated it to something people under 40 recognize. For money. It’s that easy
Tom, you write that “these are not serious people with sincere motivations,” but let’s look at what really happened here. Disney announced it was going to destroy the most popular ride (per Trip Advisor’s reader ratings) at the Magic Kingdom — one based on wonderful folktales told by slaves, then captured in a reknowned work of children’s literature, then charmingly and delightfully depicted by the Disney of the 1990s — and would do so because…George Floyd was murdered? There is nothing remotely racist about Bred Bear, Brer Fox, and Brer Rabbit, or about the iconic and Oscar-winning “Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah,” which, as you know, the parks have now banned (to their impoverishment). Then, after adding activist-fueled content to some of their recent offerings, Disney publicly criticized the Florida legislature for passing a law to keep well-funded advocates from weirdly sexualizing young children’s education. The legislature and governor then decided that a company that used to enrich chidren’s lives and celebrate America (Walt Disney once aptly described Disneyland as “a kind of monument to the American way of life”), but which has now unfortunately been infiltrated by woke advocates advancing an activist agenda, perhaps no longer merits the extraordinary privileges granted through the Reedy Creek Improvement District. Are politics involved? Sure. But you seem to be ignoring the disturbing trends at Disney that have taken them in a decidedly non-Walt-like direction and led to this result. I’m a big fan of your blog, but I haven’t even seen you criticize Disney’s senseless shuttering of beloved Splash Mountain, which is odd given your clear appreciation of EPCOT’s American Adventure, Country Bear Jamboree, Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln, and so much more.
I haven’t written that because I don’t believe it to be the case. I don’t doubt for a second that the politics of many TWDC employees, especially those based in Burbank, skew liberal. However, I know that was not true of Bob Chapek. Iger is socially liberal, but he’s also one of the greatest businessmen ever and is not letting his personal beliefs cloud his judgment. Regardless of what they might say, I’d hazard a guess that everyone in the c-suite is fiscally-conservative, rational, and profit-driven. I do not think Disney or most other publicly traded companies are making business decisions based on emotions or their own views.
Rather, shifting demographics and capturing a growing segment of the market is at the heart of most moves. That doesn’t mean there aren’t knee jerk reactions or inorganic content placement (that has definitely happened), but I think a lot of people see recent decisions companies have made as some personal affront…and in reality, it’s just business.
As for the new CFTOD board not being serious people, that’s my conclusion upon reading their bios and hearing what they have to say; that they didn’t “catch” the Development Agreement despite having notice and it being discussed at a prior public meeting only reinforces that. (As stated in the post and elaborated further in a prior comment, I do think DeSantis is incredibly intelligent, and just overly-obsessed with political theater.)
I have a 15 year old, and she’s never seen Song of the South. I’m 50 and I saw it once, when I was very young and I don’t remember much about it. The movie has zero cultural relevance at this point, and it’s not good business to have a ride dedicated to a movie that no one has seen for close to 30 years. It’s not “senseless,” it’s recognizing that society changes, culture changes, and what used to resonate, doesn’t now and things that don’t resonate don’t sell. That’s all.
I still don’t understand why people act like re-theming an old, broken down ride is tantamount to a betrayal of the American way of life. It’s not, it’s just business.
(Also, there’s a podcast called You Must Remember This that did an outstanding episode about Song of the South. I learned a lot from it.)
Jeff, as far as Splash Mountain goes: It perpetuates misrepresentions and stereotypes of the Antebellum South and African Americans. Also, the ride isn’t part of the “celebrated past” of the theme parks. Splash Mountain was opened in the 1990s, not the 1950s or ’60s, it isn’t part of the original park concepts, models or plans. Heck, it’s called Splash Mountain because Michael Eisner wanted a movie tie-in even though the theme was completely unrelated to the movie “Splash”.
Nailed it (as usual) Tom. I said pretty much the same thing–but not as well–in an earlier comment. Couldn’t agree more–so many want to insert politics into what was clearly a business decision it’s a little baffling to me.
Very well-written, Tom. I always appreciate your reporting and analysis.
Imagine mishandling an argument so poorly that you somehow make your opponent, a $177,000,000,000+ company, look like the underdog.
Good- I hope Disney wins.
The pictures in this article are… *chef’s kiss*
Well done!
Smile – that’s what I thought, too. Every photo made me smile. Tom does have a way with them!
I agree! Bravo Tom 🙂
Freedom of speech doesn’t seem like the smart play, considering Disney wasn’t silenced. Disney simply lost its special district for disapproving of legislation banning sexual education in school to 8 year olds.
If you read the lawsuit Disney makes a solid argument for how the states retaliation has chilled and continues to chill Disney’s protected speech
Government retaliation for speech is a violation of the first amendment of the constitution.
Shocking how you’re overlooking that – or do you feel the “end justifies the means”?
First, it bans sex education all the way through grade 12 now (which, of course, was the overall goal of the bill). Secondly thanks to republicans pushing Citizens United through, corporations are people –and therefore get 1st amendment rights the same way the rest of us do. Desantis is on record as stating this is retaliation for Disney daring to voice an opinion he didn’t like. Such a clear violation of first amendment rights this seems like a slam dunk.
I think what I want to know the most is…what happens now?
There’s a general scent in the wind regarding the legal proceedings, but in the meantime who has ‘governance’ over operations at Disneyworld? Is it proceeding forward like it did in the Reedy Creek Days, or is it proceeding forward under the King Charles Clause, or is it proceeding forward under the new Superior Authority?
When I was a kid they started teaching sex education in school. I think it was 7th grade when children are generally 12 years old. They separated the boys from the girls for sex ed. It may have been that only the kids whose parents signed waivers were admitted to those classes. It was controversial at the time. 60 years later every aspect of our culture uses sex in the quest for profits. It has grown to the point that kids have much shorter childhoods and there is less time for innocence. I am and have always been a supporter of gay and trans rights. In college as Student Government President I hired one of the very first transpersons to speak at our school. We became good friends. I also oversaw the first gay club on campus and attended it’s events. Over the years my business made me many friends in the LGBTQIA+ community. I’m also a huge fan of Disney and they should have the right to speak their mind but they have made a number of crucial errors. As I understand it the bill in question had 70% support from the community because it was about “not discussing” sex to kids from K to 3 (5 to 8 year olds). For political purposes one advocacy group branded it the “don’t say gay” bill while it just as easily could have been called the “don’t say straight” bill. I and most of my gay and trans friends don’t have a problem with “not talking sex” to children under 8. We’ve agreed little kids should be allowed to be little kids and their parents have the right to decide what they are taught. We shouldn’t lose sight that teachers (and my wife is one) are employees of the parents/community. Unless there’s more to the bill that I’m unaware of Disney was unwise to go against leaving sex out of the curriculum of Kindergartners up to third grade. If there’s another part of the bill that’s anti gay perhaps they could have stated they were in support of no sex talk to young children but opposed to those other parts of the bill. The second mistake they made, which everyone forgets, is that they stated they would be active in fighting this bill. This may have been the part that really set the stage for a war. It’s one thing to say I don’t agree with this and another to say I’m going to fight you with every thing I’ve got. Which Disney did. To be clear, I’m perfectly fine with Disney voicing their opinions, taking stands and getting into the fray. Whether I agree or not, I support everyone’s right to speak out. Especially if I disagree with them. The most important aspect of free speech is for people to have the right to be wrong. Right or wrong Disney had the right to say and do what they did. We may all agree that Florida is out of line retaliating over Disney’s clear first amendment right but technically Florida can rescind Disney’s special deal. Here’s the problem for this latest Disney lawsuit. On the one hand Disney has a very good case which they should win but it keeps alive in the minds of many not that it was all started by a mouse but that it was all started by Disney being opposed to a bill about not discussing sex with little ones under 8. There’s just no good pr that comes out of this. Disney may (and should) win the freedom of speech issue but they will not gain back anyone they lost and it prolongs the bleeding. Next up, plenty more controversial self inflicted wounds not even related to this.
Mickey1928 your post is the most thoughtful and accurate post on this subject. Bravo for your discourse.
The bill wasn’t just about banning sex talk though. It is written in such a way that mentioning the mere concept of same sex couples could be seen as a violation of the bill. Stating that two people of the same gender love one another is no more sexual than acknowledging that a man and a woman are in love. Which presumably most people don’t have a problem with, and something Disney has openly portrayed in their films from the very beginning; Snow White is wishing for the one she loves to find her, after all.
I know my response is drifting more towards the “politics” side than the strictly “Disney” side of this discussion, but I’m hopeful this comment still makes it through because as a member of the LGBTQ+ community it is especially important to me that people know those who oppose the bill aren’t advocating to teach sex to children.
Jared is correct. The laws (which now extends to grade 12) prohibits all mention of anything having to do with gay or trans people. A straight teacher can have a photo of their spouse and family on their desk; a gay teacher may not. Pretending LGBT people do not exist will not make them go away, and acknowledging them is not “grooming” (which is abhorrent and wasn’t happening in schools anyway). As the parent of a gay teen in high school and a Central Floridian, this has been a terrible experience for LGBT kids–they are getting the message loud and clear that who they are is shameful and must not be discussed. It’s awful, and actively harming kids and families.
Last month DeSantis proposed extending the bill to 4 – 12 grade students as well and last week the state legislature approved it. It is not about protecting innocence – it is about criminalizing talking about an entire group of people so they are erased from education.
Of course everything taught in school has to be age appropriate. Why not have a bill saying not to give recreational drugs to school children as well? But no one thinks this bill was about sex ed. From the beginning it was touted as a way to prevent children from being “turned gay” by finding out about gay people. I have no idea how that was supposed to work, but it’s clear it’s payback to punish gay families not that gay marriage is legal.
And there’s a good reason for sex education to be addressed earlier than in your generation: the average onset of puberty has dropped by two years in girls. According to recent studies, while the average age of menarche is 12, that’s just the peak of the bell curve; half will get their first periods younger than 12, and significant numbers of girls starting at age 8. The *average* onset of other physical manifestations of puberty such as breast development is even younger, as young as 8 depending on the demographic.
As the father of a young woman, I want her to be prepared for what is happening or will happen naturally to her body. There’s nothing dirty about teaching children about their bodies in an age appropriate way. There anre incredible downsides to keeping young people ignorant about their own bodies that I shouldn’t have to enumerate. The bill in question has been extended to grade 12 now, but I have no idea how sex education would work within the limitations of the bill.