Josh Barro:
So, what happened here is, Disney has its own special municipality that was created decades ago back when they were developing Walt Disney World. It was called the Reedy Creek Improvement District. And it was controlled by the landowners, and the only landowner was Disney. So, Disney basically got to issue its own bonds, and make its own development regulations, and that sort of thing. And then, once Disney spoke out about this Parental Rights in Education Bill, often referred to by opponents as the don't say gay law, the legislature took a number of steps ultimately changing the control of that board to be put under the control of handpicked appointees of the governor. And the governor was making clear his intentions to basically screw with Disney with his new control of that board. And so, Disney is suing and saying, this violates our constitutional rights.
Ken White:
A place to start, Josh, is that this whole concept of special districts and improvement districts is not unique to Florida or Disney. It happens all over the country. It's basically a way to get a company or entity to take the lead in developing the infrastructure and area in exchange for giving them more autonomy and power in that area, and that's what they did. Florida wants Disney to have a gigantic park, but doesn't want to put in all the infrastructure for it. They give Disney the power to do it, and Disney gets more autonomy and has to spend more of its own money. So, this is something that is not unique to Disney in the United States. What is fairly unique, as you said, is the record that Ron DeSantis and Republicans in the Florida legislature and others have managed to make in this case. So, it's very hard to win a case that says basically the legislature had the wrong motive for passing a law.
Josh Barro:
Because, Disney has no inherent right to this district.
Ken White:
Exactly.
Josh Barro:
There's no constitutional right to the Reedy Creek Improvement District. It has to be that the legislature did this constitutionally permissible thing in changing the structure of the district for an impermissible purpose.
Ken White:
Absolutely. And courts generally recognize that politicians bloviate that what they say a few times isn't necessarily a reliable evidence of what laws are actually about or motivated by. But, here is just over the top. Disney said it would continue to speak out against this law that's very controversial, and that's very much in keeping with Disney's social and political approach, and what it sees as its audience and its constituency. And Ron DeSantis and the Florida Republicans really decided to, I think, make political hay out of this, portray themselves as standing up to the mega corporation for American values and all this type of thing, and just made an incredibly detailed and vivid record that we are doing these things to teach Disney a lesson. Not at all like, the special district was wrong, or is inappropriate or anything like that.
Josh Barro:
They did make some comments about that also.
Ken White:
But, very secondarily. They made it clear they were doing this to teach company that they're not allowed to try to have a say in the state's laws, the state's frankly anti-gay laws. And so, DeSantis went as far as to put a bunch of it into his book. So, I find, Josh, that I need to once again amend the list of things where you shouldn't talk about the bad thing you did. Don't write a book about it, for instance. I don't feel I should have to make these qualifications, but there you go.
Josh Barro:
In Ron DeSantis' book he says, if Disney wants to embrace woke ideology, it seems only fitting, they should be regulated by Orange County. Orange County is the county that contains Orlando, Florida. That was a first effort to dissolve the district. They were going to turn it back over to the counties. Then they came up with the secondary idea that they'd create a new district that the governor controls. But, in any case, that seems very clear. It's not about why should a private landowner be able to control a private government? It's about woke ideology. It's about the position that they took on this issue where Disney as a person, not a natural person, but a corporation has a First Amendment right to speak out about those sorts of things.
Ken White:
And Disney has a ton of employees in Florida, and it may be worried about how they're treated by the Florida government. And Disney is probably taking the stance, nobody else gets to mistreat our employees. Only we get to mistreat our employees.
Josh Barro:
But, does it matter why Disney is speaking about it?
Ken White:
No.
Josh Barro:
So, what if they have employees or not in the state? Disney is welcome to speak out about policies even in a state where it doesn't do business.
Ken White:
This is the most core First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances, to offer your opinion about pending legislation. You do not get any more core. Every single justice agrees that's part of the First Amendment than that. So, Bork would've said that that's core First Amendment. That's how far it is. So, they file suit, and a bunch of the lawsuit is mostly being ignored because its terribly boring. It's about violation of the Contracts Clause, and the Takings Clause, because you purported to vitiate these contracts.
