Walt Disney World is one of, if not the most, well-known enterprises in the state of Florida. In the 2022 fiscal year, it generated approximately $40.3 billion in statewide economic activity.[1] It also paid taxes of upward of $6.6 billion, $3.1 billion of which was state and local tax.[2] On top of the 263,000 jobs sustained by Disney World, it also contracts with roughly 2,500 local businesses to supply products and services.[3] Without Disney World, Florida’s unemployment rate would increase by 2.4%, jumping from 3% to 5.4%.[4] It is safe to say that Disney World plays a major role in Florida’s economy.

Since 1967, the Reedy Creek Improvement District has been a special governing and taxing district encompassing Walt Disney World.[5] The board members of this district are elected based on land ownership percentage.[6] Since Disney’s land ownership is the largest in the district, that has allowed it to effectively control the district’s board for 56 years.[7] However, that is no longer the case. Recently, the Florida Legislature has dissolved the district and replaced it with the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District, whose board members are appointed by the Governor and subject to Senate approval, effectively ending Disney World’s self-governing control over their district.[8] Why would Florida Governor Ron DeSantis make this monumental change directly impacting one of the most significant economic players in Florida?

In 2022, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed House Bill 1557, the “Parental Rights in Education Bill” into law.[9] “The bill prohibits classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through 3rd grade and prohibits instruction that is not age appropriate for students and requires school districts to adopt procedures for notifying parents if there is a change in services from the school regarding a child’s mental, emotional or physical health or well-being.”[10] Disney expressed their opposition to the bill and stated that their goal was for the law to be repealed by the legislature or overturned by the courts.[11] After this comment from Disney, Governor DeSantis, and the Florida legislature decided to dissolve the Reedy Creek Improvement District and take away Disney’s self-governing authority. Disney viewed this act not as one made in the best interest of Florida and Floridians, but instead as a punishment for exercising its First Amendment rights in opposing House Bill 1557, or as coined by its opponents, the “Don’t Say Gay” bill.[12] In response to this, Disney sued the Governor, the Secretary of Florida’s Department of Commerce, and the members of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District board for violating its First Amendment rights.[13]

On January 31, 2024, the United States District Court, N.D. Florida dismissed Disney’s claims against all parties.[14] The claims against the Governor and Secretary of Commerce were dismissed due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the claim against the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District Board for failure to state a claim.[15]

The court first looked at the claim against the Governor and the Secretary of Commerce to consider whether Disney had standing. “Standing requires three elements: ‘(1) an injury in fact that (2) is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and (3) is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.’”[16] Concerning the Governor, Disney failed to show traceability and since Disney was seeking injunctive relief, it must allege an “imminent future injury,” and Disney had failed to allege facts that any imminent future appointments to the board would contribute to its harm.[17] The court further stated that “stopping hypothetical future appointments will not redress any alleged imminent harm.”[18] When analyzing the claim against the Secretary, the court stated that Disney had failed to articulate any injury that was attributable to the Secretary.[19]

The court then turned its attention to the First Amendment issue. “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.”[20] “[I]t 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 impermissible purpose.’”[21] The court looked to the Supreme Court, which had acknowledged “the ‘hazardous’ nature of inquiring into legislative motive, and it declined to void a statute ‘essentially on the ground that it is unwise legislation which Congress had the undoubted power to enact and which could be reenacted in its exact form if the same or another legislator made a “wiser” speech about it.’”[22] Disney argued that courts frequently look to legislative intent when determining cases, however, the court rejected this argument because the cases Disney used to support its claim concern race, religion, and laws designed to regulate speech.[23] Disney also argued that even if the law did not explicitly target Disney, it comes close to targeting only Disney.[24] The court swiftly rejected this argument and stated that a law either explicitly singles out a specific group or it does not, and the law here did not.[25] Therefore, the court concluded that “‘. . . courts shouldn’t look to a law’s legislative history to find an illegitimate motivation for an otherwise constitutional statute.’ Because that is what Disney seeks here, its claim fails as a matter of law.”[26]

Disney has since appealed the district court’s decision.[27] It has said in response to the decision, “[t]his 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.”[28]

The battle between Disney and Florida is long from over. Disney will continue to fight in the courts and through the legislature to regain control of its district. It is unclear what Disney will do if it do not get the results it wants. However, Walt Disney World remains open and continues to create taxable revenue for Florida. There may be a world where Disney decides to abandon Florida for a state that is more accommodating of its progressive values. Plenty of states would line up for the financial benefits of a Disney Park. Disney already has parks in Paris, Shanghai, Tokyo, Hong Kong, and its original in California. The company is not afraid to expand and build new parks. However, the happiest place on Earth remains in Florida, for now.

[1] Oxford Economics, Disney’s Effect on Fueling Florida Economy, Jobs and Tourism, 2023, https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/resource/disneys-effect-on-fueling-florida-economy-jobs-and-tourism/

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] 2024 WL 442546 (N.D.Fla.), 1

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Governor Ron DeSantis Signs Historic Bill to Protect Parental Rights in Education, 2022, https://www.flgov.com/2022/03/28/governor-ron-desantis-signs-historic-bill-to-protect-parental-rights-in-education/

[10] Id.

[11] The Walt Disney Company, Statement From The Walt Disney Company On Signing Of Florida Legislation, 2022, https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/statement-from-the-walt-disney-company-on-signing-of-florida-legislation/

[12] 2024 WL 442546 (N.D.Fla.), 1

[13] Id.

[14] Id. at 6

[15] Id.

[16] Id. at 2

[17] Id. at 3

[18] Id.

[19] Id.

[20] Id.

[21] Id.

[22] Id. at 4

[23] Id.

[24] Id.

[25] Id. at 5

[26] Id. at 6

[27] Rob Wile, Disney files appeal after federal judge dismissed its lawsuit against DeSantis, 2024, https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/disney-lawsuit-against-desantis-dismissed-why-explainer-rcna136622

[28] Id.