Disney's lawsuit against Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District is dismissed

Jan 31, 2024 in "Reedy Creek Improvement District"

Posted: Wednesday January 31, 2024 2:27pm ET by WDWMAGIC Staff

This afternoon, U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor has dismissed Disney's federal lawsuit against Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, and DeSantis' Central Florida Tourism Oversight District board.

The former Reedy Creek Improvement District HQ is now home to a Ron DeSantis appointed board of supervisors and CEO

As part of a 17 page ruling, Judge Winsor said, "In short, Disney lacks standing to sue the Governor or the Secretary, and its claims against the CFTOD Defendants fail on the merits because 'when a statute is facially constitutional, a plaintiff cannot bring a free-speech challenge by claiming that the lawmakers who passed it acted with a constitutionally impermissible purpose.'" The 46 year old Orlando-born Republican Judge was appointed by President Donald Trump in 2019.

Last year, DeSantis and CFTOD filed a motion to dismiss Disney's federal lawsuit, in which the entertainment giant claimed that there has been "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."

Lawyers for DeSantis and CFTOD have argued that it doesn't matter if the governor's actions were in retaliation, with Disney lawyers taking the opposite position.

Judge Winsor has issued his ruling today saying, "This case was resolved on motions to dismiss. Plaintiff's claims against the Governor and the Department Secretary are dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff's claims against the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District board members are dismissed on the merits for failure to state a claim."

Notably, the ruling does suggest that Disney may have standing to sue the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District board members. While the court dismissed Disney's claims against Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and the Secretary of Florida's Department of Commerce due to lack of standing, it acknowledged that Disney has demonstrated sufficient standing to bring a claim against the CFTOD Defendants.

In a statement released following the court case's dismissal, a Disney spokesperson told WDWMAGIC, "This is an important case with serious implications for the rule of law, and it will not end here. If left unchallenged, this would set a dangerous precedent and give license to states to weaponize their official powers to punish the expression of political viewpoints they disagree with. We are determined to press forward with our case."

You can read the judge's full findings here.

Discuss on the Forums

Get Walt Disney World News Delivered to Your Inbox

mkt11 days ago

The free speech claim was federal, the land use claim was state.

mikejs7811 days ago

The federal case was not predicated on FL free speech law, it was based around 1st amendment jurisprudence and the US Constitution contract clause. The state case was based around state law but not speech state law.

Bullseye196711 days ago

I am not sure of the actual filing and I will admit that I am too lazy to look through all the filings you posted, Thank you, but I think it was a claim on FL law and not Federal. The Sol on "free speech" in FL is 3 years, but it is not limited in USC, And if this is right, it was what I quoted above. The clock is ticking. A federal court can not take action on a state law case if SoL has expired.

JoeCamel13 days ago

Saved them a bunch of cash

Chi8413 days ago

The State was happy with the way things were. For many, many years.

mikejs7813 days ago

My gut says that beginning in 2027 there will be legislation that slowly picks away at CFTOD and gradually returns control to Disney. It won't happen all at once - but I bet it will happen.

Chi8413 days ago

There's a battle being lost, but it's not really a PR battle and it only tangentially involves Disney.

mkt13 days ago

You’re right that there wasn’t a massive public rally to defend Disney. At least not in the way we often see with political figures or causes. But that doesn’t mean they lost the PR battle. It just means they played it differently. They didn’t need cheering crowds. They let the state’s actions speak for themselves. The Lake Nona cancellation - whether intentional or not - ended up being the loudest statement. Thousands of high-paying jobs. Gone. Local business groups noticed. Real estate noticed. Economists noticed. That stuck. Meanwhile, the “win” Florida claimed was largely symbolic - swapping one board for another - while Disney kept building, kept expanding, and retained the infrastructure and bond authority they needed. The machine never stopped. And let’s not forget: the only only people visibly waving flags on the property line during this entire episode? They were on the state’s side, and those flags bore symbols we all agree have no place in a civilized society. So no - Disney didn’t lose the PR war. They just didn’t fight it with soundbites. They let time and economic impact do the talking.

flynnibus13 days ago

Who came to defend Disney? Who lined up to call out DeSantis' action? Who lined up to point out the cabel action in the Legislature? Who used Disney as an example of what can happen? I'm not talking about who wrote stories to cover the news.. I'm talking about who put their name on the line to call out the injustice that was happening? How many people did you hear regurgitating the false propoganda about taxes? How many people did you hear thinking this RCID thing was some long running scam that was time to go? I'm talking about who the gen pop saw as in the wrong... most did not flock to defend Disney... they saw it as some corporate scam that finally was being taken down.. Disney was pretty much the target of the most direct, blatant, outright cheered political driven retribution I can think of in any recent memory... and the gen pop thinks DeSantis was eliminating corporate benefits and DEI non-sense. That's the PR battle Disney lost.

Prince-113 days ago

Oh Ronnie didn't need Disney's help to accomplish that. He was never going to be president.

MR.Dis13 days ago

Disney won in one respect, this incident totally destroyed a certain Govenors hope of ever being seen as Presidential material.

mkt13 days ago

That’s a fair framing if you’re evaluating from a strictly structural standpoint Yes, Disney no longer controls the board, and yes, they negotiated toward a new normal rather than scorched-earth resistance. But to say they “lost the PR battle”? I strongly disagree. Florida came off as punitive, erratic, and willing to jeopardize thousands of high-paying jobs over a political tantrum. The Lake Nona cancellation - whether coincidental or not - felt like fallout, and perception did the heavy lifting. That loss is now linked to the state’s actions. No press release needed. Florida is viewed as having cost the region several thousand high earners, along with their housing demand, business growth, and tax revenue. That’s not just bad optics. That’s third-world-level policy sabotage. Meanwhile, Disney kept building. The board that was supposed to rein them in greenlit a $17B expansion. Bond authority stayed. Infrastructure control stayed. Functionally, nothing stopped. Sure, the expansion brings jobs. But they're mostly tourism and hospitality roles. These aren't six-figure white collar transfers — they're hourly park positions. Florida traded a long-term white-collar boom for a short-term PR win and a few more popcorn carts. That’s not a victory. That’s a downgrade. If anything, Disney let Florida win the headline, then quietly walked away with the outcome. That’s not “dealing with the devil.” That’s knowing when to let the devil shake his fist at a cloud while you pour the foundation for your next park expansion.

LAKid5313 days ago

Precisely

UNCgolf13 days ago

Indeed. And while I wish Disney had fought to the end, that was never likely. Publicly traded corporations just don't really operate that way. For example, I've represented corporate clients who had a good chance of prevailing against the government in regulatory investigations, but they would have spent more on the fight than they spent on the settlement -- so they settled. There's always going to be a cost/benefit analysis (which often involves more than just the potential legal fees) regardless of whether they think they're right. Incidentally, this is one of the reasons Harvard is more likely to fight to the end in their current litigation (although that's certainly not guaranteed). They don't have to worry about shareholders, although they do have some other outside concerns.