Disney has lost a round in its fight with Ron DeSantis:
In a legal victory for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a federal judge in Tallahassee dismissed on Wednesday a lawsuit filed by the Walt Disney Co. over the state’s dismantling of the entertainment giant’s special taxing district.
....Judge Allen Winsor of the U.S. District Court for Northern Florida ruled that Disney “lacks standing to sue the governor” and that the law it was suing over was constitutional.
And what do we know about Judge Winsor? He was, no surprise, nominated by Donald Trump. He is, naturally, a longtime member of the Federalist Society. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights doesn't think much of him:
Mr. Winsor is a young, conservative ideologue who has attempted to restrict voting rights, LGBT equality, reproductive freedom, environmental protection, criminal defendants’ rights, and gun safety. He does not possess the neutrality and fair-mindedness necessary to serve in a lifetime position as a federal judge.
In other words, Winsor is just your basic modern conservative judge, and that's about all you need to know. Of course he ruled in favor of DeSantis.
POSTSCRIPT: For what it's worth, Winsor agrees that Disney has suffered a general injury by no longer having a tax board it controls. His ruling denying standing to sue DeSantis is twofold. First, DeSantis's actions to stack the board with his lackeys is in the past. Nothing can be done about it now. Second, maybe DeSantis effectively controls the board, maybe he doesn't. But the board hasn't done anything bad yet, so who cares?
This strikes me as a bit of "heads I win tails you lose." Disney can't sue over past action, and future action is just speculative. But if that's the case, what would give Disney standing?
Winsor also inexplicably says that the law creating a new tax district is OK because it doesn't single out "a specific group." IANAL, but the record sure seems to show that, in fact, it does single out Disney and it was retaliatory. I'm not sure how much more explicit a law could be on those grounds.
This is a tough one. Irrespective of any legal merits of this case, I can't decide which of the parties I dislike more, Ron DeSantis or DisneyCorp. Well, DeSantis has made a lot fewer people happy, so there's that.
are you kidding? maybe it's because i live in florida and have to live with this malignant clown as governor of my state, but it ain't even close. desantis by a mile. the reedy creek deal probably should never have happened, at least not in the way it did, but clearly "good government" wasn't why desantis killed it.
If this ruling stands, it will send absolute shockwaves through corporate America. Any governor, mayor, county supervisor -- whoever -- is basically free to fuck around with any company they don't like for whatever reason and the company has no redress unless a series of random stars align that some judge deems sufficient. You don't have to be a fan of Disney's corporate lawyers, widely regarded as some of the most ruthless sharks in the business, to see that this could end badly in a lot of ways. My bet is that judge Winsor gets slapped down pretty quickly on appeal and the case proceeds. Not that, like Eileen Cannon, he'll give a shit about his integrity or reputation as a jurist, but there will be some slapping.
Yeah I dunno, I saw this as "he may have abused his legal authority, but it's his legal authority." And in any case there's "no redress unless ... some judge deems sufficient."
I hope you're right about the slapping, but I can also see this being "this ain't legal, it's political, it's up to the voters."
Disney is appealing and appeals courts don't issue rulings like "it ain't legal; it's political." They will rule on whether the judge improperly applied the law in this case, particularly on whether eliminating the special district was intended to specifically stick it to Disney. There's no other way of looking at it, imho.
That's the point: they'll say he DID apply the law reasonably (or reasonably enough), and the redress for Disney is not legal but political.
I don't like it either, but governors have power and discretion, and as long as it's a reasonable-enough exercise of legal power, they can fk with people they don't like.
See what the appeals court says. I'd be happy to be wrong.
That would be bad, it would set the precedent that political entities can just up and walk away from single, specific people/companies.
I thought the gerrymandering being a political question ruling was awful, but using that logic here would be a step further, giving politicians impunity to crush enemies.
Strangely this was not a concern when the corporate victim was Chick-fil-a. https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/chick-fil-banned-second-airport-two-weeks-n991016
I wonder why?
Its so strange when people react differently to different scenarios, facts and actions. How can this be?! HOW CAN THIS BE!?
If you have a reaction to the police arresting someone for stealing a car, you must also have the same reaction to the police ticketing someone for NOT speeding.
If you are okay with the state barring sex offenders from working in childcare, you must also be okay with the state barring minorities from opening businesses on main street!!
If your opinions or reactions are different, WE WILL ALL WONDER WHY!!!
Lol, so much dumb on the internet.
No, you don't.
*Rolls eyes*
A city council voting on which companies to grant concessions to at a public venue is routine business, not an illegal power grab by a state governor. Had DeSantis, say, instructed state agencies to no longer hold conferences on Disney properties or something, that would be one thing. This is another.
Dude. Straw man much?
A) Chick-fil-a isn't the only business that isn't open 24/7.
B) The ruling didn't cover any existing contracts.
C) Why should a business that has no intention to be open 24/7 be allowed to take a contract to be open 24/7?
This.
If a company can't sue over an action that's 'happened in the past' what can they sue over?
Sure, I robbed your house but, hey, that's all in the past, bro.
Yeah, that sounds like the logic of an 8 year old. Don't all crimes and violations occur in the past? Can we arrest someone before they commit a crime?
Heads-I-win-tails-you-lose legal dilemmas are pretty common, just not usually this obvious or directed against rich people.
I did notice this too, though -
That isn't going to pass a smell test on appeal. And if this guy doesn't learn to thumb the scale with more subtlety than this, people are going to start remembering this guy's name just like they do Aileen Cannon's. Shoddy crap like that might fly in district court with normal folks who can't afford to appeal, but this is Fed court with Mickey Mouse.
Be better, dude.
Judges can be wrong-----and juries can be wrong too.
That is correct.
Writ of mandamus? Injury was caused; targeted law was illegal and must be nullified. The means to making Disney whole is to remove all that DeSantis's legislature did. Judge is testing the patience of obviousness.
"...DeSantis's actions to stack the board with his lackeys is in the past. Nothing can be done about it now...."
A pernicious doctrine, so far as it is even comprehensible. Shall the law concern itself exclusively with prevention? Nearly every legal remedy ever awarded, down all the centuries of English common law and its descendents, has been retrospective.
How long can the party paid for by corporations to do corporate bidding fight against corporations? How do you fuck around with ABC/Disney/ESPN and not get serious blowback? Shouldn't the Chamber of Commerce be freaking out?
From the jabberwocking.com header:
"There are idiots. Just look around." - Larry Summers
Whether a person is an idiot depends on your perspective. For example, Mick Mulvaney's answer to the "Is President Donald stupid?" question was no, then he gave an example of President Donald being smart, then he summed it up by saying people would recognize that President Donald is smart if they heard him talk about things he cares about. Ref: https://www.cnn.com/audio/podcasts/axe-files/episodes/c44edf5c-9f76-11ee-84b4-e3425e0c4ade
A fly is smart when it interacts with anything it cares about, and stupid when it interacts with something it doesn't care about, like a windshield on the freeway.
President Donald, Judge Allen, and Speaker Mike are like that, but so is President Biden, Judge Kaplan, and Speaker Pelosi. Whether they are stupid is in the eye of the beholder, and the eye of the beholder is a function of what the beholder cares about. Translation: the first three are selfish, and the last three are not selfish ... and that tells you all you need to know about their supporters.
A fly can't perceive a windshield on the freeway, so how can it be smart or dumb about it at all?
Pingback: Trump-appointed judge rejects Disney’s lawsuit against DeSantis – Welcome to Susshadu
> And what do we know about Judge Winsor?
A good 24h after you posted this, this post still sticks in my craw. I’d like to think that I’m not naive about the state of the judiciary, but leading with ad hominem attacks serves what purpose? Do I really need to spell this out? Your postscript should have been your first and only response, in my opinion.
What purpose?
Perhaps it is an accurate statement on the state of much of the judicary in the US.
The best way to understand and evaluate the legal argument/judgement is to consider the judge's background. Dont waste your time trying to parse the language of the ruling, there is nothing there.
This isnt an ad hominem attack.
The postscript leaves us scratching our heads trying to find some kind of precedent or law based rationale for the ruling.
I read the ruling and came to the same "Heads I win, tails you lose" conclusion as you. There didn't seem to be any legal rationale. Just 'argle bargle' in the words of the late Antonin Scalia.