This is a corporate relations lawsuit. Bob Iger was on a campaign to undermine his successor Bob Chapek, and frequently attacked him through the media and also claimed -- when Chapek had only been CEO for weeks -- that Iger had come back to rescue Disney from covid.

He did all of this because Chapek was not running DEIsney the way Iger wanted it to be run. He was gone for weeks before he began lobbying the board of directors for a return.

Then came the Parental Rights In Education Bill, and the leftwing presidential-nominee-hopeful Bob Iger could not resist attacking Bob Chapek for his position of neutrality. He rallied DEIsney's Woke Gender Warriors into an insurgency, and Bob Chapek relented in the brief social media war, and committed DEIsney -- as Bob Iger demanded -- to pursuing a Groomer Agenda.

This resulted, as could have been expected, in Ron DeSantis asking the Florida legislature to revoke DEIsney's special -- and illegal, frankly -- Reedy Creek Improvement District (RCID). This District, which gave a corporation control over a huge chunk of central Florida, never should have been granted in the first place. Even after its granting, it should have been almost immediately revoked, because the RCID was granted with the belief that DEIsney would be creating a one-of-a-kind planned community, the Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow, or EPCOT. This was supposed to be a planned city built with Walt Disney's ideas of wholesome perfection in mind.

But that was quickly abandoned and DEIsney just built another theme park, Walt Disney World, on the site. The pretext for granting DEIsney corporate control over the businesses and residences of the area was no longer present, but DEIsney got to keep its lucrative perk.

And it was very lucrative. For example, the RDIC could issue bonds with the usual tax-free advantage that municipal bonds have. But the RDIC was just a pass-through fiction controlled by DEIsney, so DEIsney could issue what were effectively corporate bonds, but with the special tax-free status that municipalities are granted. Thus, DEIsney could offer corporate bonds with a lower rate of return and people would buy them up, because the tax-free advantage made that lower-paper-rate-of-return a higher rate of return when you included the effects of taxation. (Or non-taxation, as it were.)

Bob Iger had therefore made a selfish, suicidal decision to undermine Bob Chapek and commit DEIsney to a toxically unpopular Groomer Agenda just to claw his way back to power. And when that maneuver resulted in DEIsney losing its special status -- a loss that observers estimate will cost DEIsney more than a trillion dollars over the decades -- Bob Iger had to scramble. He had to reassure investors that his narcissistic groomer gambit actually wasn't such a bad move at all.

He filed a lawsuit which was nonsense from the moment ink touched paper claiming that the Florida legislature had no right to create or destroy special districts, despite the black-letter law stating that only the Florida legislature had such a right, and could exercise it at any time.

But the lawsuit wasn't a real lawsuit -- it exists just to convince Bob Iger's leftwing backers that DEIsney has a special right to hold hundreds of acres of central Florida as its own corporate fiefdom in perpetuity, and that one day, this eternal right to rule will be recognized, so DEIsney will not lose a trillion+ dollars due to Bob Iger's filthy scheming.

Because this was a corporate relations project, Bob Iger whispered Gollum-like in the ears of his leftwing media allies that this was a suit with a huge amount of merit, and would almost certainly prevail, and his leftwing media allies repeated this thoroughly-stupid, uninformed, ignorant claim with great vigor and repetition.

But all along, anyone who knew anything about Florida law -- or Florida special district law -- or the law in general, period -- knew this was a complete loser of a lawsuit and would be dismissed at the earliest opportunity.

And so it came to pass. What all informed observers said would happen, did happen, and what the ignorant leftwing propaganda media vowed would never, ever happen happened so fast and so hard that Fani Willis inquired if it was available for sidework.

Most of the fake lawsuit was dismissed for "failure to state a congnizable claim" -- that is, even when the court takes every allegation DEIsney makes as 100% true, they still have not announced any basis upon which they can seek relief from a court.

As a special bonus, some of the lawsuit was dismissed for... lack of standing. Basically, if I'm getting this, DEIsney was suing the newly-created special district that replaced the Reedy Creek Improvement District, and basically whining that this new district was not under DEIsney's full control and doing what the old RDIC used to do. I think DEIsney was bascially attempting to sue as if it actually was the RDIC itself, which it's not, or rather, which it was but wasn't supposed to be-- the RDIC and DEIsney were supposed to be two entirely different corporations, dealing with each other at arm's length. But of course in fact the RDIC was just a catspaw of DEIsney, and treated like just another subunit of the corporation.

United States District Judge Allen Winsor dismissed The Walt Disney Company's lawsuit against Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and the State of Florida.

The Walt Disney Company sued Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, the State of Florida, and other Florida government officials in a 77-page document back in April 2023.

The lawsuit alleged that the State of Florida's decision to dissolve the Reedy Creek Improvement District violated the Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution, violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, and violated the company's First Amendment political speech.

The Walt Disney Company CEO Bob Iger attempted to justify the lawsuit by positioning the company as a victim. During the company's Q2 2023 Earnings Results webcast he said, "First of all, I think the case that we filed last month made our position and the facts very clear. And that's really that this is about one thing and one thing only, and that's retaliating against us for taking a position about pending legislation. And we believe that in us taking that position we are merely exercising our right to free speech."

Legal Mindset points out that it is black-letter federal law (black-letter meaning top-of-the-page, main-point law) that if a legislature is empowered to do something, and if it acts with what appears to be superficial comportment with the law and constitution, then you're not allowed to sue the legislature to compel it to do what you'd rather it do.

This is obvious, when you think about it. Legislatures are always favoring one company or another through their laws, sometimes directly, but more often, indirectly.

If any time a corporation wanted an advantage granted to another corporation, it could just sue and say "We're being discriminated against," then the legislatures could basically pass no laws at all.

This may sound pretty good to some of you, but obviously, this is not the law as it stands.

DEIsney knew this when it filed its fake lawsuit, and all the corrupt media should have known it, too, or could have known it if they just contacted a real lawyer about this instead of relying on representations made by Bob Iger and his paid flacks.

...

Judge Winsor specifically addressed the First Amendment claim writing, "'As a general matter, the First Amendment prohibits government officials from subjecting individuals to retaliatory actions after the fact for having engaged in protected speech.' But it is settled law that '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 permissible purpose.' The Eleventh Circuit has 'held that many times.' And this settled law forecloses Disney's claim."

He also noted, "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."

...

Legal analyst Andrew Esquire predicted dismissal was highly likely in an interview on the WDW Pro channel back at the end of June 2023.

He said at the time, "For Disney, the nightmare scenario, the worst possible scenario, which is a likely scenario, I don't want to give exact probabilities, but it's something that could very much probabilistically happen is the federal case gets entirely dismissed. It gets entirely thrown out. There's multiple reasons. The reason cited, one of the main reasons which I have said from the beginning on this which is Disney does not truly have standing. They do not meet the elements for standing. Standing means the ability to bring a claim to court."

"This is exactly the reason that the citizens who actually sued the state of Florida for these legislative changes way back earlier this year, they were thrown out for standing. Disney also can be thrown out for much similar grounds," he explained.

DEIsney is continuing to embarrass itself by pumping out more fake theories to justify its fake lawsuit.

According to Blog Mickey, a Disney spokesman stated, "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."

He concluded, "We are determined to press forward with our case."

Suck my dick, DEIsney. You're probably into that, though.

Below, Legal Mindset clowns the Mouse.

Here he responds to "BlogMickey," one of DEIsney's many propaganda accounts.