united-states attainder
Can Disney claim Florida has passed and is pursuing Bills of Attainder?
<p>The State of Florida seems to be in a protracted battle with Disney.  The state has legislated in the direction of Disney, and continues to do so
(<a href="https://www.wfla.com/news/florida/desantis-speaking-at-reedy-creek-administration-building/" rel="noreferrer">https://www.wfla.com/news/florida/desantis-speaking-at-reedy-creek-administration-building/</a>).</p>
<p>Despite the fact that there might be real arguments that such legislation is for the well-being of the state, the dialog surrounding Reedy Creek issues, including statements coming out of the State, seems to provide a solid argument that the motivation for such legislation is to punish Disney for voicing objection to recent policy decisions in the State.</p>
<p>Assuming that as a given, for the moment (though that's, at the least, arguable), doesn't that provide Disney with the argument that these are Bills of Attainder?</p>

<p>Legislatures are free to declare illegal whatever they want (within Constitutional limitations, obviously).  A bill of attainder declares a defendant guilty without trial.  Targeting a company with laws isn't particularly noteworthy, this is done all the time, usually to the company's benefit.</p>
<p>Nothing Florida is doing would be considered a bill of attainder.  Special conditions that have been set by the state are always available to be re-legislated.</p>

<p>At question here is whether Disney was punished by an act of the Florida Legislature.  Lets look at basically how this happened.  At first the legislature voted to strip Reedy Creek of its special designation.  Once they realized that this would shift the burden of bond payment to the local counties to the tune of billions, they repealed the law that stripped Reedy Creek of its special designation.  They then passed a law dissolving the Reedy Creek Board that was appointed by Disney.  Before that board was seated, Disney held public meetings in accordance with Florida transparency laws and changed their by-laws as to what power the board would have.  Again this was done above board just no one seemed to notice.  This was signed off on by the former board which was still legally the board for Reedy Creek.  Now that we know this, did the legislature make <em>all</em> the boards of special tax districts submit to a board appointed by the Governor to make business decisions?  No, just Disney.  Also, the Governors own words show that this was a retaliatory action.  Disney has an incredibly strong case here and if I had to chose which one to represent...it would easily be Disney.</p>
