Disney claims that the motion to dismiss its lawsuit in federal court by Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) is an attempt for him to "evade responsibility" for his actions against the entertainment giant.
Lawyers for the company, in a filing in opposition to a motion to dismiss posted late Wednesday, argue the case presents a "fundamental" question" on whether DeSantis and the other defendants can "escape accountability" for defying first amendment free speech protections.
DESANTIS TO HEADLINE 'FAITH & FREEDOM BBQ' DAYS AFTER FIRST RNC DEBATE
Disney argues that laws DeSantis passed, after the company spoke out against the Parental Rights in Education bill, infringe on protected free speech rights are unconstitutional, citing the recently decided Supreme Court case 303 Creative v. Elenis, and that companies are entitled to First Amendment rights, citing the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
"Governor DeSantis disagrees. In his view, corporations must remain 'merely economic actors,' and when they dare to 'become political' and seek to 'advance a political agenda' that does not conform to the ruling party’s program, government leaders are free to 'fight back' by wielding official state power against disobedient companies until their disfavored views 'die,'" the filing said.
"Disney, of course, has been the central target of the Governor’s weaponized State — a retaliatory campaign he launched because, the Governor’s memoir declares, Disney 'crossed a line' by expressing the wrong view in a political debate, which he viewed as a 'textbook example of when a corporation should stay out of politics,'" the filing continued.
DeSantis and acting Secretary of the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity Meredith Ivey argued in their motion to dismiss the lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida that they are immune to the lawsuit. Disney, in the filing, claims the assertions "have no application here."
"In the State Defendants’ separate motion that is addressed here, the Governor seeks to evade responsibility for his actions on a narrower ground, asserting that a governor cannot be held officially liable for implementing, administering, and enforcing state laws that punish residents for political statements violating a state-prescribed speech code," the filing said.
In its filing opposing the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District's motion to abstain or dismiss, Disney asserts that the question of the case is better suited for federal court rather than state court, as the district argues in its countersuit in state court.
"The State’s motion now puts into stark relief the fundamental question whether government entities in America may control their citizens’ speech and override their contracts without fear of oversight from federal courts. The answer is no. Contrary to the State’s principal theme, state laws are not categorically immune from review merely because they involve manipulation of a local governance structure. A state certainly may establish governing entities in many different forms," the filing said.
"But a state cannot abrogate lawful contracts and eliminate locally accountable property governance to punish political speech, just as it cannot condition government benefits or employment on adherence to a government prescribed speech code. When a government entity fails to respect the Constitution’s constraints on its conduct, federal courts have a duty to intervene," the filing continued.
The lawsuit was filed in federal court by Disney after DeSantis and other state entities took action to restructure the district encompassing the Walt Disney World Resort into the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District, and after the new board and DeSantis took action to invalidate an agreement between Disney and the previous district board, which handed nearly all power for the district to the entertainment giant.
DeSantis and the board then enacted a "one-two punch" to invalidate the agreement, including the board using a legal infirmity to declare the agreement void and the Florida legislature passing a law that targeted the agreement's validity. On the day the board declared the agreement void, Disney filed the federal lawsuit arguing a "relentless campaign to weaponize government power against Disney in retaliation for expressing a political viewpoint unpopular with certain State officials."
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The board later filed a countersuit in state court, which had its first hearing last week.
DeSantis and the other defendants have until Aug. 9 to respond to Disney's opposition to their motions to dismiss the lawsuit.