[ad_1]
(Photo by Ronda Churchill/Getty Images)
Ron DeSantis may have secured a more politically favorable judge despite his legal team’s bumbling, but that might not be enough to salvage the Florida governor’s ongoing war with Disney after the Supreme Court buried a gem in this morning’s Moore v. Harper ruling.
To recap, DeSantis decided to bolster his doomed presidential bid by launching a culture war against Disney over its pro-vaccine and anti-bigotry stances. He considered blowing up the company’s special tax district, but that blew up in his face instead. Then he replaced the district’s board with his people, but they never bothered to object as the prior board entered publicly noticed, legally binding agreements that stripped the board of power. He rammed through a law voiding those agreements — managing to moot his own board’s rights in the process because his lawyers are wildly bad at this — prompting Disney to file a federal suit.
In addition to a compelling First Amendment argument, Disney pointed out that the U.S. Constitution explicitly prohibits state governments from voiding contracts. It’s a provision that the courts haven’t invoked in a long time. Mark Joseph Stern at Slate even warned that we shouldn’t be reminding the Supreme Court that this clause even exists (though I disagree).
As the Court rejected the independent state legislature theory it noted that there are other places in the Constitution where the federal courts have the authority to ding state legislatures, citing — oh, let’s just pick one clause at random — the Contracts Clause:
A similar principle applies with respect to the Contracts Clause, which provides that “[n]o state shall… pass any… Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” Art. I, §10, cl. 1. In that context “we accord respectful consideration and great weight to the views of the State’s highest court.” Indiana ex rel. Anderson v. Brand, 303 U. S. 95, 100 (1938). Still, “in order that the constitutional mandate may not be- come a dead letter, we are bound to decide for ourselves whether a contract was made.” Ibid.; see also General Motors Corp. v. Romein, 503 U. S. 181, 187 (1992).
We know you have many options in picking legal support for federal judicial authority and we thank you for flying with the Contracts Clause.
That’s John Roberts letting the new judge — and failing that the Eleventh Circuit — know that Disney’s theory of the case may have been out of sight for a while, but it’s no longer out of mind.
Have a magical day, Ron!
Earlier: Disney Litigators Take Their Turn Beating The Hell Out Of Ron DeSantis With New Federal Lawsuit
We Shouldn’t Have To Choose Between Disney Whipping DeSantis And A Dickensian Hellscape
Judge In Disney’s Case Against Ron DeSantis Recuses Himself Because Father’s Brother’s Nephew’s Cousin’s Former Roommate Owns 30 Shares Of Disney
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.
[ad_2]
