Judge disqualifies self in Disney suit, but not for DeSantis’ reasons
U.S. District Judge Mark E. Walker on Thursday disqualified himself from presiding over the court battle between Walt Disney Co. and Gov. Ron DeSantis, but for different reasons than stated in a motion by DeSantis' legal team which Walker called “nothing more than rank judge-shopping.”
Lawyers for the governor filed a motion for Walker's disqualification last month claiming that in another case, the judge asked questions that suggested bias in favor of Disney.
The entertainment giant filed a federal lawsuit against DeSantis, accusing him of retaliating against the company for speaking out against the Parental Rights in Education Law, dubbed the “Don't Say Gay” law by critics. The law prohibits classroom discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity for young students.
According to the motion filed by DeSantis' legal team, Walker brought up Disney “unprompted” in a separate case and asked whether a record exists of people taking action against those described as “woke” and a pattern of “punitive actions.”
According to the motion, Walker asked: “What's in the record, for example — is there anything in the record that says we are now going to take away Disney's special status because they're woke?”
Then later, the motion said Walker said: “And then Disney is going to lose its status because — arguably, because they made a statement that run afoul — ran afoul of state policy of the controlling party.”
DeSantis' lawyers claimed the remarks could “imply he has prejudged the retaliation in question.”
Lawyers for Disney opposed the disqualification request saying that Walker's remarks did not meet the standard for disqualification.
Walker agreed adding that the legal precedents cited by DeSantis' lawyers were cherry-picked and applied without context.
“My use of hypothetical questions referencing facts related to this case, in an earlier case also dealing with the motivations of political actors (including some of the same actors here), cannot raise a substantial doubt about my impartiality in the mind of a full informed, disinterested lay person,” Walker wrote.
Still, Walker choose to remove himself from the case.
Though he disagreed with the reasoning DeSantis' lawyers presented, he said he is obligated to “evaluate all potential grounds for disqualification,” not just those brought up in the motion filed by DeSantis' lawyer.
In his order denying DeSantis' request but still choosing to disqualify himself, Walker revealed that last week he learned that a relative owns 30 shares of Disney stock and because any decision in the case could financially impact a close relative, he is obligated to remove himself from the case.
Walker acknowledged that the 30 shares likely does not amount to a large sum of money but even if a family member owned just one share worth $1, that would still be enough to trigger his disqualification.
“When a judge becomes aware that a third-degree relative has a financial interest that may be affected by the outcome of a proceeding, such as the case here, that judge must determine whether the third-degree relative's financial interest ‘could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.' … An affirmative answer to that question requires disqualification from the proceeding. The size of dollar amount of the third-degree relative's financial interest is irrelevant, as it is ‘not the size of the interest that is a concern…, but rather whether the interest could be substantially affected.'”
With that order, Walker was removed from the case and it was reassigned to Judge Allen C. Winsor.