Disney’s Legal Strategy in DeSantis Case: Go For the Jugular

Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution imposes certain restrictions on the states. The states are not allowed to print their own money, nor are they allowed to form their own armies. During the Civil War, the U.S. Supreme Court used this Clause of the Constitution to keep from recognizing the union formed by the seceding states. But, in the case of the Walt Disney Company, this part of the Constitution prohibits the state from passing any laws that infringe “upon the obligation of contracts.” 

If you’ve been paying close attention to the case that the Walt Disney Company brought against Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District, you know those last five words are the most important. And new details have just emerged that show lawyers representing Disney in this case are going right for DeSantis’ and the Board’s jugular using the language in the Contract Clause of the Constitution as its ammunition.

Related: Chief Justice John Roberts Just Sent a Message to DeSantis, Bring Disney Feud to the Supreme Court and You’ll Lose

When Walt Disney began the process of building Walt Disney World in Central Florida in the 1960s, he entered into a development agreement with Florida to create the Reedy Creek Improvement District. The Special District would oversee all aspects of the maintenance and governance over Disney World’s land. There are thousands of these Special Districts in Florida, including a new one just given to Disney’s rival, Universal Studios Orlando.

But after former Disney CEO Bob Chapek reacted to the passage of the Parental Rights in Education Act, known by its critics as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, Governor DeSantis and the Florida Legislature passed a law that voided the Reedy Creek Improvement District and created the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District in its place. Disney sued DeSantis in Federal Court for violating its First Amendment Rights and the Board of DeSantis appointees in State Court over the dissolution of its contract with the state.

It is clear that Disney will be basing its defense on the idea that Governor DeSantis violated the Contract Clause when he abolished Disney’s governing District and replaced it with a loyal board. The Washington Post reports that attornies representing Disney want to question former District administrator John Classe and seek documents used to adopt the contracts, documents that support the District’s authority to enter the contracts, and information about how the agreements were publicized.

Classe was the administrator of the Reedy Creek Improvement District before it was dissolved. He was replaced by Glen Gilzean, who is the current CFTO administrator. Classe was in charge of the District when it signed over control over the construction and design of the Walt Disney World Resort to the company and when rules were passed that prohibited the District from using the likeness or intellectual property of Disney without the company’s permission.

Classe was also the administrator when the Reedy Creek Board signed what has become known as the “King Charles III Clause,” which gives Disney control over parts of the District until 21 years after the death of the youngest current descendant of King Charles.

Lawyers representing the CFTOD argue that the contract between Disney and the previous Board should be voided because they were not adequately publicized. It was a source of embarrassment for Florida Gov Ron DeSantis and his new Board that the Disney Company could accomplish this right under their noses without them noticing. Disney will use the documents and interview with Classe to show that the agreements are legally binding and were lawfully obtained by the company.

Should Disney attorneys succeed with this line of questioning, that’s the ballgame for Governor DeSantis and his Board. They would have violated the Constitution, and Disney would easily win its lawsuit.

We will continue to update this story at Disney Fanatic.