Federal judge dismisses Disney lawsuit against DeSantis

In a victory for Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida, a federal judge on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit brought by the Walt Disney Company alleging that Mr. DeSantis and his allies violated the company's First Amendment rights through a special tax district to take over that includes Walt. Disney World.

Disney said it planned to appeal the ruling.

Disney and Mr. DeSantis, who recently ended his campaign for president, have been at odds for nearly two years over Disney World, the 25,000-acre theme park and resort complex south of Orlando. Angered by Disney's criticism of a Florida education law that opponents called anti-gay — and seizing the opportunity to score political points with supporters — Mr. DeSantis took over the tax district, appointed a new board and ended the already the company's long-standing ability to govern Disney World itself as if it were a province.

Before the takeover took effect, however, Disney signed contracts – quietly, but at publicly announced meetings – to lock in development plans worth some $17 billion over the next decade. An attempt by Mr. DeSantis and his allies to void the contracts resulted in dueling lawsuits, with Disney suing Mr. DeSantis and the tax district in federal court and the new appointees returning fire in state court.

On Wednesday, Judge Allen Winsor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida in Tallahassee dismissed the federal case in its entirety.

“It is settled law that 'when a statue is constitutional on its face, a plaintiff cannot challenge freedom of speech by alleging that the legislatures who adopted it acted for a constitutionally impermissible purpose,'” Judge Winsor wrote in his statement. Simply put, Judge Winsor ruled that the law that gave Mr. DeSantis control of the special tax district was written in such a way that Disney could not seek retaliation on its face, especially since Disney was not the only landowner affected.

Judge Winsor wrote that Disney “bears the brunt of the harm” from the law, but not all of it. “There is no 'close enough' exception.”

In a statement, Disney said: “This is an important case with serious consequences for the rule of law, and it will not end here. If left unchallenged, this would set a dangerous precedent and give states the freedom to weaponize their official powers to punish the expression of political views with which they disagree.”