UNBIASED - Limit, Save, Grow Act of 2023, Disney Sues DeSantis, SCOTUS's Last Argument of Term.

Episode Date: April 28, 2023

1. House Passes "Limit, Save, Grow Act of 2023" Re: Debt Ceiling and Spending Cuts (1:37)2. Disney Sues DeSantis and Others for Violating its Constitutional Rights (8:17)3. Supreme Court Hears Last Arguments of the Term Re: Constitutionality of a State's County Pocketing Proceeds of a Foreclosure Sale Above Amount Owed (24:48)If you enjoyed this episode, please leave me a review and share it with those you know that also appreciate unbiased news! Follow Jordan on Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube.  All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Kick off an exciting football season with BetMGM, an official sportsbook partner of the National Football League. Yard after yard, down after down, the sportsbook born in Vegas gives you the chance to take action to the end zone and celebrate every highlight reel play. And as an official sportsbook partner of the NFL, BetMGM is the best place to fuel your football fandom on every game day. With a variety of exciting features,

BetMGM offers you plenty of seamless ways to jump straight onto the gridiron and to embrace peak sports action. Ready for another season of gridiron glory? What are you waiting for? Get off the bench, into the huddle, and head for the end zone all season long. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older. Ontario only.

Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem? For free assistance, call the Connex Ontario helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. You are listening to the Jordan is My Law podcast. This is your host Jordan and I give

you the legal analysis you've been waiting for. Here's the deal. I don't care about your political views, but I do ask that you listen to the facts, have an open mind and think for yourselves. Deal? Oh, and one last thing. I'm not actually a lawyer. Welcome back to the Jordan is my lawyer podcast. Happy Friday. I have three news stories to cover today. The first one is about the limit save grow act of 2023. It was just passed in the house on Wednesday. You may or may not have heard about it. The second story is about the Disney lawsuit against Ron DeSantis. You guys had requested I talk about this and I was planning on talking about it anyway, so it worked out. And the last story is about the last oral argument that the Supreme Court heard on Wednesday

before they go ahead and take their recess until the next term. So before we get into these stories, I just want to give you a quick reminder, if you haven't already, I always really, really appreciate when you guys leave me a review, whether it be on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Apple Podcasts actually lets you write a review, which is great. Spotify doesn't give you that same opportunity, but they still let you rate it with stars nonetheless. So if you guys could just take a few seconds to do that, it really helps my show and I really appreciate it. So without further ado, let's just jump right in. On Wednesday, the House passed the Limit Save Grow Act of 2023 in a 217 to 215 vote, though it likely won't get President Biden's signature and it likely won't get the two-thirds vote it needs to overcome

President Biden's veto. I want to talk about it nonetheless because it plays, I've talked in past episodes about this ongoing debate between President Biden and Speaker McCarthy about the debt ceiling. And Speaker McCarthy, he doesn't want to raise the debt ceiling, whereas President Biden is very adamant that he's not making any concessions when it comes to raising the debt ceiling. That's just something he says has to happen, and he doesn't want any concessions to go along with it. Well, McCarthy, on the other hand, says, no, we need spending cuts. Biden disagrees. Shortly before the bill was passed on Wednesday, President Biden said, quote,

I'm happy to meet with McCarthy, but not on whether or not the debt limit gets extended. That's not negotiable. They quote Reagan all the time and they quote Trump, both of which said, and I'm paraphrasing, it would be an absolute crime to not extend the debt limit, end quote. So I looked into this a little bit and yes, both Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump raised the debt ceiling during their presidency. Ronald Reagan actually raised it 18 times in eight years. But the situation was a little bit different. So Reagan was actually in favor of spending cuts and reducing taxes, though he did also at the same time realize the importance of raising the debt ceiling. And I found a transcript. It's an old transcript, obviously, but it's one of his radio addresses

from his presidency. This specific address was on September 26th, 1987. And I found it interesting because it's kind of the same situation that's happening now, but a little bit in reverse. So what he said was this, and this is just part of the address, obviously, but what it said was, the Congress once again has passed a bill that put me in the position of accepting legislation with which I fundamentally disagree. I would have no problem with signing an extension of the debt limit, but the choice is for the United States to default on its debts for the first time in our 200-year history, or to accept a bill that has been cluttered up.

This is yet another example of Congress trying to force my hand, and it's one more reason why the president needs the line item veto to separate the good from the bad, end quote. And kind of a similar situation is happening here where President Biden now has this or will have this legislation in front of him, assuming it passes the Senate, with which he fundamentally disagrees. And he is of the position that the debt ceiling just needs to be raised, and that's it. So anyway, let's get into this bill, this Limit Save Grow Act of 2023. According to Congress's official bill summary, what this bill does is it increases the federal debt limit and decreases spending at the same time. So it's

increasing the limit as far as what McCarthy is willing to do, but then also adds all these cuts that McCarthy wants and cuts that Biden is not necessarily for. So let's talk specifics. These are some of the things that the bill does. It suspends the debt limit through March 31st, 2024, or until the debt increases by $1.5 trillion, whichever occurs first. It also establishes discretionary spending limits for the fiscal year 2024 through 2033 that include decreases in discretionary spending. It rescinds certain unobligated funds that were provided to address the pandemic and to the IRS in the amount of $80 billion. It nullifies certain executive actions and regulations for canceling federal

student loan debt and implementing an income-driven repayment plan for student loans. So what this would do is get rid of Biden's loan forgiveness program and instead implement an income-driven repayment plan for those loans. This bill also repeals or modifies tax credits for renewable and clean energy, energy-efficient property, alternative fuels, and electric vehicles. It establishes new work requirements for Medicaid and expands the work requirements for SNAP and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. And it requires major federal rules to be approved by Congress before they take effect. And this is in regard to rules likely to result in an annual economic effect of at least $100 million. Now, this bill also includes various provisions related to the development

of energy resources such as oil, natural gas, minerals. As an example, just to kind of illustrate, the bill requires additional federal oil and gas leasing, reduces or eliminates certain royalties and fees, and expedites the permitting process for various energy projects. Now, according to the Congressional Budget Office, who released their cost estimates of this bill on April 19th, they're estimating that if this is enacted, the budget deficits would be reduced by about $4.8 trillion over the next 10 years. Now, again, President Biden is not keen on this bill. And honestly, it doesn't really have that much support in the House even. I mean, relatively speaking, of course. And there really isn't that much time left to figure this out. I'm sure they will figure it out. But the time, you know, we're cutting it close.

The United States states if nothing is done could default as early as the first week of june and obviously that's when we would start to see things kind of spiral downwards given the not so great state of our economy currently so i'm like i said i'm sure they're going to come to some sort of resolution but this bill is not what president biden wants necessarily But now he's stuck in this position of, okay, do I hold out and risk the United States defaulting? Or do I give in to this bill and then possibly lose some of my Democratic supporters? Now that he announced his run in 2024, obviously his decisions are, he's going to be more careful about his decisions so i just wanted to

let you guys in on that bill and what that is because i didn't really see it make such headlines i mean i saw it here and there but i just figured it was important to talk about a little bit and fill you guys in so that brings us into our next story which is disney's lawsuit against desantis a lot of you guys request requested I talk about this. I was already planning on it. So that's great. It all worked out. So this all started with Florida's House Bill 1557, which opponents refer to as the Don't Say Gay Bill. I'm sure you've heard of it. If you want a more in-depth analysis, definitely listen to my August 22nd, 2022 episode. I cover it in a lot of detail there,

but just to summarize it in a few short sentences, it does not say the word gay anywhere. I just like to clear that up. However, it does prevent the discussion of gender identity and sexual orientation in the classroom from grades K through three. Now that was recently actually expanded to ban any sort of discussion like that up until grade 12. So K through 12, you can't have any sort of discussion about sexual identity or sexual orientation or gender identity. But at the time that this conflict started between Disney and DeSantis, it was just grades K through three. So Disney spoke out about the law and they basically said, you know, we support members of the LGBTQ plus community. We firmly oppose any legislation, you know, the don't say gay bill essentially. And Ron DeSantis was not

happy about that. He did not like they spoke out about it. And at one point, the Disney CEO at the time actually got on the phone with Governor DeSantis to express his concerns and express Disney's concerns. And according to Disney, DeSantis basically said something along the lines of, you're going to regret ever, you know, bringing this up. So after that, they're not on good terms. And the don't say gay bill gets signed into law on March 28. So following this, obviously, Disney is even more displeased. And at this point, DeSantis says that Disney's public statement crossed a line in his eyes. Now, obviously, we don't know what that line is, but it a line according to desantis and then following that florida actually passed legislation that revoked

disney's autonomy in a sense in developing its land and disney's like this was complete retaliation you know you guys would have never done this if we didn't speak out against House Bill 1557. So basically, there's this district in Florida, it's called the Reedy Creek Improvement District, and it was created in 1967. And it was essentially created to construct Disney World. But over time, its authority was expanded and now it became the governing district of this area where Disney World was. So imagine it like this. Up until now, Disney had its own governing district. So it wasn't necessarily subject to all of the rules and regulations that other entities in Florida are subject to. And how it worked is that the district board members within this district, the Reedy Creek Improvement District, they were elected based on property ownership in the district. Well, Disney, being the largest

landowner in the district, the largest taxpayer, had a huge impact on various things within the district. This goes, you know, acquisition of property, development of transportation facilities, operation of public utilities, things like this. Disney essentially had all the say. So now that you know a little bit about the district that was governing Disney, let's go to April when Governor DeSantis calls for an expansion of this special session that was scheduled to address redistricting in the state of Florida. And DeSantis says that his purpose in expanding the session was to consider whether special independent special districts should be subject to the special law requirements of the 1968 Constitution that prohibits special laws granting privileges to private corporations so basically he's saying yeah we need to expand the special session to talk

about these independent special districts that still exist that were created prior to the the ratification of the florida constitution in 1968 and you know figure out what what we should do with them. Well, Disney says, okay, well, we're only one of six independent special districts created before 1968 that haven't been reconstituted since then. So clearly you're targeting us. So the special session goes forward, two bills are introduced, one in the House, one in the Senate, and these bills basically dissolve any independent special district that, one, was established by special act prior to the ratification of the 1968 Florida Constitution, and two, was not re-established, re-ratified, or otherwise reconstituted since, aka Disney. And to make it more clear that this law targeted disney one of the florida legislatures

actually almost immediately after the special session announced quote disney is a guest in florida today we remind them at governor desantis just expanded the special session so i could file hb3c which eliminates reedy creek Improvement District, a 50-year-old special statute that makes Disney exempt from laws faced by regular Floridians. And then he also told the Florida House State Affairs Committee, quote, you kick the hornet's nest, things come up. And I will say this, you got me on one thing. This bill does target one company.

It targets the Walt Disney Company. So then from here, okay, so this was, this was April 19th. These bills are signed into law on April 22nd. Well, then on April 26th, something else happens that really just strikes a nerve with Disney. So in the beginning of the year, Disney decided, you know, when they were uncertain about how all of this would play out with DeSantis, they were obviously in the middle of their heated controversy, and they decided to seek out future development plans. So they wanted to lock in contracts. So that way the contracts couldn't be interfered with. And specifically on February 8th, the Reedy Creek Improvement District, so this is before the law called for the dissolution of Reedy Creek Improvement District, right?

So the district is still in full force in effect. Reedy Creek Improvement District and Disney execute contracts for long-term development planning. Well, then a few weeks later, DeSantis takes it upon himself to select five people that will replace existing members of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District, CFTOD. And they have a meeting in April and the board declares these contracts that Disney executed with Reedy Creek Improvement

District in February, declares the contracts void and unenforceable. And they say that the execution of these contracts violated various Florida statutes. And one of the specific violations that they cited was when it comes to notice. So essentially what their argument was, was that Florida statute requires notice be given to all property owners within the district. And they say that Disney didn't notify all property owners in the district before they had this meeting where they entered into contracts for new future developments. And they said because they didn't

notify all the other property owners, they violated Florida statute, and therefore, their contracts are void and unenforceable. And they cited to some other violations, but you get the gist. I'm not going to bore you with it. We already have a lot going on here. So literally within minutes on April 26th, Disney files this lawsuit. And what they say is that Governor DeSantis, along with the other defendants named in the lawsuit, clearly violated Disney's federal constitutional rights under the Contracts Clause, the Takings Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the First Amendment. And they say that this is completely retaliatory and it should have never happened this way. So let's take this one cause of action at a time and then I'll get into what DeSantis said about this whole thing and then that'll be

it. And you'll have a very, you'll have more of an understanding of this case than just about anyone, okay? I'll tell you that much. So the first cause of action is the contracts clause. And this stems from the voiding of the contracts that we just talked about. And Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution says that no state shall pass any law that impairs the obligation of contracts. And what Disney says is that the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District, which is the district that voided the contracts, it says CFTOD's decision to abrogate the contracts completely rather than pursue modification of whatever provision CFTOD claims to be unlawful underscores its motivation to punish Disney for its political speech rather than to operate as a good faith counterparty in the continued development of the district. And what Disney is seeking here is declaratory relief, which is basically a declaration from the court that what the defendants are trying to do is a violation of Disney's rights under the contracts clause. And they also want a declaration that the contracts in question are still in full force and effect, and they're not, you know, void and unenforceable like CFTOD

is trying to say that they are. So that is the contracts clause, cause of action. Now, let's move on to the second cause of action, which stems from the takings clause. The takings clause of the Fifth Amendment says that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. taking their property without compensation because they entered into this contract for property essentially, future developments, but property nonetheless. And the government just coming in and taking this property by way of voiding the contracts is, it's not right. It's a violation of the takings clause. And again, Disney is seeking a declaration that the taking of disney's property by way of the contracts violates the takings clause and the contracts remain the third cause of action stems

from the due process clause which says that no person shall be deprived of life liberty or property without due process of law and the argument here is that the act to void the contracts wasn't done for a legitimate state interest, and instead it was done to further the state's campaign of retaliation against Disney. So in order to properly take the property, the government has to show that the voiding of the contracts is reasonably necessary to advance a legitimate state interest. And this language stems from the rational basis test. So in judicial review, there are three tests that can be used to determine if a law is constitutional. And the levels of review depend on what right the law is violating.

But in this case, it would be the rational basis test, which is the easiest test for the government to satisfy, actually. But Disney says they can't even satisfy this test because in order to satisfy the rational basis test, Florida has to show that in voiding the contracts, there was a rational relationship between that action, avoiding the contracts, there was a rational relationship between that action of voiding the contracts and a legitimate government interest. And they say they don't have a legitimate government interest, so they can't prove this. And again, they're seeking a declaration that the voiding of the contracts violates the due process clause and a declaration that the contracts remain in full force and effect. And the last two causes of

action stem from the First Amendment. So this is in regard to both the voiding of the contracts and those laws that I talked about, which were passed regarding the Improvement District. So remember, towards the beginning of the story, I talked about those two laws, one House bill or one House bill, one Senate bill, where they called for the dissolution of Reedy Creek Improvement District. So they're saying, Disney is saying that the voiding of the contracts and these laws that dissolved Reedy Creek Improvement District are unconstitutional because their speech and speaking out against House Bill 1557 was protected under the First Amendment, and therefore the state cannot retaliate, and the law and the voiding of the contracts were both retaliatory in nature. And again, they're seeking

a declaration that these things were unconstitutional. So that is probably the best explanation you're going to get about this lawsuit, not to toot my own horn or anything, but I really try to make it as simple as possible because as you can tell there, it is pretty complicated. But when you hear it like that, I think it makes it a lot easier to understand. So in response to this lawsuit, DeSantis was asked about this. He was in Jerusalem and one of the reporters there asked him at the end of his speech what he thinks about this lawsuit. And this is what he said in part. He said, quote, giving companies their own governments, that is not what a free market

is all about. In fact, they've been treated much different than Universal, SeaWorld, and all these other places. And so they're upset because they're actually having to live by the same rules as everyone else. I don't think the suit has merit. I think it's political. The days of putting one company on a pedestal with no accountability are over in the state of Florida. And I will say a lot of Floridians were upset, particularly parents, that they went headstrong into trying to get the sexualization of the

curriculum into the elementary schools we don't think that's appropriate in florida parents want their kids to be kids so that's what he said about the lawsuit he said he doesn't think it has merit it's political but then so i heard this poli sci professor from columbia talk about this whole situation and he he brought up a really thought-provoking point when he was asked if this is if this is an unusual move by disney to file a lawsuit and what he said is that desantis is engaging in a very heavy-handed form of regulation of a company which actually goes against the free market ideology and he says it's a hypocritical move for someone from the Republican Conservative Party. With regard to any objection that DeSantis has

to Disney's viewpoint, it should be a market decision where the consumer decides to support Disney or not. So I would love to hear your thoughts on that. Because, you know, on one hand, DeSantis says a free market doesn't allow companies to have their own government. But then on the other hand, does a free market support the government's interference with the way a company is governed? Two things can be true, by the way, you know? So I would just, I would love your thoughts on that. So please let me know. I always have the comment section on my website on this particular episode's web page. And then of course, you can always let me know on social media. Jordan is my lawyer on both Instagram and TikTok. Okay, before we get

into the last story, the last story is actually pretty short, but I'm going to give you guys a the supreme court heard its final oral argument of the term on wednesday that means one we'll be getting some big decisions soon typically late june early july when the court recesses for the summer and two we won't hear about any moral any more oral arguments until October. So let's talk about this final case. It's an interesting issue. And the issue is, can a county turn a profit on the foreclosure of a property by pocketing the proceeds of the sale rather than just the money owed for unpaid taxes? So let's get into the facts of the case, and it'll better kind of illustrate what the specific issue is. Geraldine Tyler, she is now 94 years old, she bought a one-bedroom condo in Minneapolis in 1999. She then moved to a senior

community in 2010, but she kept her condo. Well, one year after she moved, she stopped paying property taxes. And by 2015, she owed just over $2,300 in property taxes. With penalties, interest, and costs, though, her total debt to the county was about $15,000. So naturally, the county took title of the condo. They sold it at auction in 2016 for $40,000. That's not what the problem is. But what the problem is, is that they kept all the proceeds of the sale, including the $25,000 difference between the sale price and what Tyler owed them. So she went to court. She argued that because the home was worth $25,000 more than what she owed the county, the foreclosure of the condo and the subsequent sale

violated the Fifth Amendment's takings clause, which we just talked about in the Disney case. She also says it violated the Eighth Amendment's ban on excessive fines. So first, let's talk about the takings clause. We know, based on the last story, the government can't take private property for public use without adequately compensating the property owners. And she says she wasn't compensated in this case. Well, then you have the Eighth Amendment. So typically this applies to criminal cases. That's how we usually see it. And what it says is that

excessive bail shall not be required, excessive fines shall not be imposed, and cruel and unusual punishment shall not be inflicted. But this can also apply to civil cases as it also protects against excessive civil fines. So notably, both the lower court and the appellate court ruled in favor of the county. They ruled against Geraldine, but she decided she wanted to take it to the Supreme Court. And she says that this case, I mean, realistically, it's her attorneys that are saying this, but she says that this case can be resolved with a very straightforward application of the takings clause. The property at issue, she says, is the equity in her condo. And she says, sure, the government can foreclose on the condo to collect a debt. That's fine. But if it does that, it's required to pay her the equity that remains. And when they don't

pay her the equity that remains, that is a taking. But she says, even if the takings clause doesn't apply, the foreclosure and sale without compensation still violated the ban on excessive fines. Well, this is what the county says. So the county says, first off, Geraldine doesn't even have standing to sue. She had a mortgage on her condo for nearly $50,000. She had a homeowner's association lien for almost $12,000. And therefore, she didn't actually have any equity in the condo and so she can't sue. She doesn't have any equity. The second thing they say is that the sale of the condo wasn't a taking. Per a Supreme Court precedent, a state can treat a property owner's failure to comply with reasonable conditions on ownership as forfeiting their entire interest in the property. And what they say is

that reasonable conditions on ownership includes payment of taxes, and therefore she forfeited her entire interest in the property. And they say not only did she know about the taxes being due, but she had five years to pay them, and she never did. So she forfeited it. Finally, the county says the sale does not violate the ban on excessive fines because this isn't a fine. This is just a remedial measure. And they say that in some instances, the forfeiture scheme actually helps the property owner because it doesn't just wipe out the debt that the taxpayer owes to the county. It also wipes out all other debts that in some cases are more than the value of the property.

So that's what the county says. Here's what the appellate court said. They said, one, as far as the taking goes, Minnesota law governs how the state distributes any money remaining once a tax debt is satisfied. And the law does not give the former property owner any right to the surplus, and therefore there is no property right, and therefore no taking. And they say, two, as far as the fine goes, the Eighth Amendment doesn't apply because the state's home forfeiture scheme is intended to compensate the government for its lost revenue. And from there, obviously, Geraldine takes this to the Supreme Court. And in her brief to the Supreme Court, she says, look, state and local governments can't circumvent the takings clause by using state law to redefine what constitutes private property.

So this is why it's in front of the Supreme Court. Now, this situation isn't necessarily uncommon. That's the thing. So the Pacific Legal Foundation, who also happens to represent Geraldine in this lawsuit, calls this concept home equity theft. And Oregon, South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, Colorado, Arizona, Illinois, Alabama, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maine, and Washington, D.C. all have tax laws that allow the government to keep more than just the amount owed in taxes. So if a property owner fails to pay or underpays property taxes, the local government or private lien holder in some situations can eventually take the entire property along with the equity.

They say this is not uncommon and something needs to be done about it. According to reports that have come out since oral arguments, the Supreme Court seemed receptive and sympathetic towards Geraldine's claim. But I want to know what you guys think about this and how you would answer this question. Do you think it's constitutional for the county to pocket whatever money is left over, or do you think that the property owner rightfully deserves that money back? Let me know in the comments. Again, you can do that on my website or on social media. That is the end of today's episode. Please don't forget to leave me a review. I appreciate you being here and I will talk to you

next week.