Well that sucks. I feel as if this went to court many months ago we MAY have seen a different verdict.
Boooo 
Winsor said the law prohibits plaintiffs from bringing a free speech challenge to constitutionally enacted laws.
Isn’t that the purpose of the lawsuit they filed? If a law violates the Constitution or an amendment of… is it really a “constitutionally enacted law”?
I think the court is saying the steps they took to disband and then create the new board were done legally, even though the impetus for the change was retaliation against free speech that Disney made.
But if it’s dismissed did they really hear the arguments? To me “dismissed” and “loosing” are 2 different things
This is where I’m having trouble following:
" from bringing a free speech challenge to constitutionally enacted laws."
I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know all the very specific things that were filed by Disney. But I was under the impression that Disney is suing DeSantis- not challenging a law itself. They are challenging the retaliation against freedom of speech. To have it dismiss- not even heard in court- seems biased. But maybe Disney did challenge the law in the lawsuit?
They are different. Basically the court said there’s no evidence that the actual process of disbanding and then creating the new board was done illegally so they can’t put them on trial for doing so
This really blows my mind though. Because motive should matter. Right? And you would think Disney attorneys surely knew what the can and can’t sue a person for. I wonder is part of the suit involves rolling back the decision to disband Ready Creek.
And is there a difference in suing a person in a offical government capacity vs as a private citizen? I though it was more difficult to sue government…
All good questions (at least to me, lol)
All good questions I don’t know the answer to 
I know next to nothing about this.
But my take is that…if the action being done is legal, REGARDLESS OF MOTIVE, then motive doesn’t really matter in terms of the lawsuit.
So, let’s pretend there was no even hint at retaliation or anything. Let’s just pretend that as the FLorida government was reviewing things, they decided they no longer wanted to grant special districting such as Reedy Creek. So, they changed things into what we have today. That action of converting from Reedy Creek to the new district (which the escapes me at the moment) is perfectly legal…which means, it really doesn’t matter if there was a wrong motivation or not behind the change…the change itself is legal regardless.
I think that’s why the lawsuit was dismissed by the judge. But again, that’s just my take on the decision.
That makes sense. But would it matter why they reviewed it? I guess not.
I can’t recall but didn’t Disney already challenge the law itself? I thought so. It just seems like a big miss on the part of Disney’s legal team to take this direction if it was likely to be dismissed. Wonder if Disney will let things go now or if they have another legal maneuver to keep the fight going with DeSantis.
I think if we stepped back from this situation, and maybe think of it with an analogy. LIke…let’s say in your community, the police are allowed you pull you over for any reason. That is to say, let’s say the law doesn’t require them to have a specific reason.
So, you get pulled over. But what was the reason? Did they pull you over because you had a broken taillight? They thought you were drunk? They don’t like your race? Maybe they are just having a bad day. Point is, it doesn’t really matter. By law, they can pull you over.
Now let’s say that you were, in fact, racially profiled. We might all agree that is “wrong”…but it doesn’t make it illegal. (In this example.)
So, I guess this case was viewed in a similar vein?
Even if the decision to do so infringes on your constitutional rights? I thought this actually was illegal. I thought this is what the whole Disney lawsuit against DeSantis was about.
Now I think I’m going to have to read what Disney filed. Send help… and Advil!
I thought this particular one was held up by the courts to be unconstitutional. I remember reading something a couple years back on this after a few officers were fired in Baton Rouge.
Quick google search says pulling someone over based solely on race is in violation of a personas 4th and 14th Amendments. I quickly scanned the Congress Review on the 4th. But I wonder if this has been reviewed by the Supreme Court.
Okay. So I picked a bad example. I was assuming that there could theoretically be a law that permitted being pulled over for any reason… but maybe I should have gone with a different example! 
I think the example was just fine. I thought you couldn’t do anything that violated another’s constitutional rights.
Pulling someone over is just one example. But targeting a business is another I would think.
But also, you have to prove intention. Not that I think in this instance it would change the outcome. Becuase if the law stands, the action wasn’t illegal.
So what would the consequence be if Disney could prove DeSantis violated their constitutional rights and the courts agreed. Shouldn’t it at least be heard?
ETA: by action wasn’t illegal I mean the actual disbanding and creating a new authority. But the reason behind targeting Disney could be questionable
But I used this example because you aren’t constitutionally protected from being pulled over! And local laws vary on what is or isn’t justified. For example, I remember when they could pull you over if they THOUGHT you weren’t wearing your seatbelt. Then they modified the law so that you had to be pulled over for some other reason, but they could ticket you if you weren’t wearing a seat belt. Then, the changed it again, and you CAN be pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt!
Just thinking it should at least be heard by a court. But the Supreme Court disagrees with me. Wouldn’t be the first time 
ETA: This was pointed out that the Supreme Court does not disagree with me on this! But mainly just because they didn’t hear it. 
@cherokee_jacket explains it below.
Sure…but that doesn’t mean that the action itself was illegal, regardless of the reason behind it. We may not like the reason…but that doesn’t make it illegal.
I wonder what Disney was asking the courts to do when finding DeSantis guilty of violating their freedom of speech. Because maybe that could be a reason to have it dismissed. Becuase they can’t reverse the legal action of replacing Reedy Creek. People ask for all kinds of things in lawsuits- money, apologies, an action to right a wrong basically.