A judge has rejected a lawsuit filed by Florida taxpayers to block the demolition of a Disney special district –

Florida taxpayers trying to block the dismantling of Disney’s special autonomous tax district are not entitled to sue on behalf of the company for alleged violations of their freedom of speech, a federal judge ruled.

In a tough five-page order denying jurisdiction, U.S. District Judge Cecilia Altonaga ruled that residents of the area around Disney World said they would be left with at least $1 billion in debt on Disney bonds if the state went through with its plans. . “The theory of the plaintiffs’ position is that the removal of the Reed Creek Improvement Site could result in financial losses for plaintiffs due to a tax increase that has not yet been enacted,” said a statement released Tuesday. “This alleged indirect and highly speculative damage cannot sustain federal jurisdiction. The Senate’s own Bill 4-C will not raise the plaintiffs’ taxes. “Again, it must be emphasized that the bill does not apply to plaintiffs.”

A lawsuit brought by residents of the neighboring district of Osceola against Governor Ron de Santis was widely expected after Florida lawmakers stripped Disney of special self-government privileges last month in response to its opposition to a parental opposition to education bill. About gender identity or sexual orientation in K-3 classes. They argued that the Reedy Creek collapse would lead to an increase in Central Florida taxpayers to pay off Disney’s bond debt, estimated at $1 to $2 billion.

Altonaga’s immediate release order addresses a number of issues related to the lawsuit, which the judge called a “gun order” and said was filed in the wrong section of Florida Federal Court.

Among the problems with the lawsuit, Altonaga says it doesn’t have the authority to prosecute claims stemming from an alleged violation of Disney’s First Amendment rights. He notes that taxpayers who filed the lawsuit did not receive any damages as a result of alleged retaliation by Florida lawmakers.

“Even more critically, the plaintiffs do not allege that Disney encountered any obstacles in protecting its first amendment rights,” the statement said. “It is far from it: the plaintiffs directly claim that ‘they will be waiting for Disney and the Florida court for a significant period of time.'[.]This fact alone will lead to your dismissal.

According to the order, the dissolution of Reedy Creek will not directly harm Florida taxpayers because “the resulting law does not apply to them, they do not claim direct damages as a result of the law being appealed, and do not prove any credibility. “The threat of direct harm in the future”.

Under the new law, independent special districts created before 1968, which have not been renewed since then, will be eliminated in June 2023 if no new agreement is reached. The lawsuit alleges that Florida legislators enacted the provision in violation of the First and 14th Amendments and the contract and sovereignty provisions.

Altonaga also says he does not have the authority to sue because he approves claims under state law that normally cannot be heard in federal court against government officials. He writes, “It is difficult to think of a greater intrusion on state sovereignty than when a federal court instructs public officials on how to carry out their conduct in accordance with state law.”

While Florida taxpayers who filed suit were allowed to rectify their claims, the shortcomings identified by the judge’s order can be difficult.

DeSantis’s office objected to arguments that the Reedy Creek collapse would lead to higher taxes.

“Perhaps this will stop the speculation of those who hope, unfounded, that this will end some kind of burden on taxpayers or the state that partisan critics could use against the governor,” said a spokesperson for DeSantis. demonstration. “In fact, this opportunity can and should be used to raise more taxes from Disney,” he said.