The De Santis attack on Disney is classic "First Amendment retaliation," legalese for a State agent using their government power to retaliate against someone for speaking — which is technically prohibited according to long-standing U.S. court rulings, right up to the Supreme Court level.

I say technically, because the courts have also made it very hard to overcome a presumption of immunity on the part of government officials when it comes to cases like this.

The Institute for Justice is pursuing a First Amendment retaliation case at the Supreme Court right now. The case is out of Texas, where a newly elected city council member pissed off the mayor and the city council, who had the cops arrest her and put her in jail on a pretext.

They were actually angry about her speech, about her challenging corruption and malfeasance.

What makes the case so special is that every finder of fact in the legal process has recognized that the mayor and the city council did retaliate. That's not in dispute.

The question is whether she has a remedy, whether she can overcome the presumption of immunity on the part of the state agents who retaliated against her for her speech.

It's going to be interesting to see what the justices say, and what they say will have a direct bearing on whether governors like DeSantis can get away with obvious First Amendment retaliation.

As the Institute for Justice says, "A right without a remedy is no right at all."