Disney has accused Florida Governor Ron DeSantis of “ongoing constitutional mutiny” in a new court filing, escalating the ongoing feud between the media giant and the Republican presidential candidate. The filing, part of Disney’s federal case against DeSantis, argues that the governor and his allies are violating the First Amendment by using their official powers to punish disfavored political viewpoints. Disney claims that DeSantis’ motion to dismiss the case is based on the premise that states can wield their political institutions to suppress opposing opinions, a premise that Disney deems un-American. The governor’s office has not yet responded to the filing.
The dispute between Disney and DeSantis stems from Disney’s criticism of the so-called “Don’t Say Gay” law, which prohibits instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity in kindergarten through third grade. In 2022, then-Disney CEO Bob Chapek condemned the law at the company’s annual shareholder meeting. In response, DeSantis signed a bill into law that allowed him to take control of Disney’s special tax district, the Reedy Creek Improvement District (RCID), which had granted Disney autonomy in its operations. DeSantis removed Disney’s hand-picked RCID board members and retroactively invalidated the agreement between Disney and the district.
Under the previous arrangement, Disney paid taxes directly to the RCID, which used the funds for theme park projects and operations. The company had control over utilities, infrastructure, building codes, and its own police and fire departments without interference from local or state government. DeSantis appointed new members to oversee the district and renamed it the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District.
DeSantis, now a Republican presidential candidate, wants to end the feud with Disney and has filed a motion to dismiss the case. Disney vehemently opposes this motion, arguing that the governor is trying to avoid responsibility for his actions. The company’s legal team claims that DeSantis openly admitted to orchestrating a plan to punish Disney for its comments on public affairs and to maintain control over its entertainment programming. Disney argues that if the state’s strategy succeeds, it will set a dangerous precedent, allowing entities to be punished for expressing disfavored viewpoints.
In June, Florida’s state Attorney General Ashley Moody argued that DeSantis should be immune from Disney’s claims under the doctrine of legislative immunity, which protects lawmakers from litigation over actions taken within their legislative sphere. Disney disputes this claim, calling DeSantis’ actions openly retaliatory and asserting that the court should deny him immunity.
The ongoing legal battle between Disney and DeSantis highlights the clash between a media giant and a political candidate over free speech and government interference. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the protection of free speech rights in the United States.
