Disney wants to narrow the scope of its federal lawsuit against Gov. Ron DeSantis to just a free speech claim that the Florida governor retaliated against the company because of its public opposition to a state law banning classroom lessons on sexual orientation and gender identity in early grades.

Disney wants to narrow the scope of its federal lawsuit against Gov. Ron DeSantis to just a free speech claim that the Florida governor retaliated against the company because of its public opposition to a state law banning classroom lessons on sexual orientation and gender identity in early grades.

Disney on Friday asked a federal judge for permission to file an amended complaint focusing just on the First Amendment claim and leaving to another, state-court lawsuit questions about the legality of agreements the company signed with Disney World’s governing district, then-made up of Disney supporters. The agreements were signed before DeSantis and the GOP-controlled Florida Legislature took over the governmental body in the spring.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        26·
        1 year ago

        I’m guessing that there are state-based laws that give the “governing district” case a stronger footing in state courts, while the Constitutional free speech argument is rightfully a federal case.

      • catreadingabook@kbin.social
        8·
        1 year ago

        Completely speculating btw:

        Separate complaints are generally addressed separately, even within the same suit. It’s unlikely one could have “tanked” the other.

        I briefly looked over the original federal complaint vs desantis and the original state law countersuit vs the oversight district. The complaints in the other suit do point to different laws.

        Since we all know these cases are going to get appealed no matter what, it’s entirely possible Disney could be trying to entice the Supreme Court into taking on the federal case down the line by whittling it down to just one issue (free speech).

        Single issue cases revolving around constitutional arguments are like crack to the Supreme Court, they love to take these so that they can announce new rules or reasoning before applying it to the case, which they get to do when “”“interpreting”“” the Constitution.

        Disney might suspect that the current Justices are drooling at the possibility of ruling expansively in favor of free speech.