In a high-stakes legal clash, Disney and Lucasfilm are urging the Ninth Circuit to review a contentious ruling that allowed former Star Wars actress Gina Carano’s lawsuit to proceed. The case revolves around Carano's claim that she was wrongfully terminated from her role due to her political views, with Disney challenging the court’s interpretation of First Amendment protections in artistic decision-making.

Star Wars Actor's Firing Suit: Disney's Motion for Appeal

In a motion filed Friday, Disney, Lucasfilm, and Huckleberry Industries US Inc. asked the court to certify an interlocutory appeal, arguing that U.S. District Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett’s denial of their dismissal bid was flawed. The entertainment giants contend that a reasonable jurist might disagree with the judge’s decision, which allows Carano's wrongful termination and sex discrimination claims to advance. Disney’s legal team insists that the Ninth Circuit should weigh in before discovery begins to potentially narrow the issues or dismiss the suit outright.

Disney asserts that artistic organizations must control casting decisions to protect their creative messages, particularly as performers increasingly shape their public personas online. "The court's ruling, Disney argues, misunderstands the scope of artistic expression and the limitations imposed by the First Amendment," the company stated.

Star Wars Actor's Firing Suit : Carano's Allegations

Gina Carano, known for her role as Cara Dune in "The Mandalorian," claims she was fired after refusing to align with Disney's and Lucasfilm's political views. Carano alleged she was terminated for not supporting the Black Lives Matter movement, not displaying her pronouns on social media, and for comparing criticism of conservative opinions to Nazi actions. She argues that other actors expressing political views were not penalized.

Legal Arguments and Court Rulings

Disney and its subsidiaries previously argued that forcing them to hire actors based on their public statements infringes on their artistic freedom. However, Judge Garnett rejected their arguments in July, finding that Disney had not shown that it hires actors to promote respect and integrity and suggesting that Carano's termination might have been an attempt to deflect criticism of the company.

Disney counters that, under the Supreme Court’s decision in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, organizations should have the freedom to control their messaging. They argue that casting decisions are integral to artistic expression, and the court’s ruling unfairly overlooked this aspect.

Potential Impact of Interlocutory Appeal

Disney believes that a Ninth Circuit review could either resolve the case or provide clarity on legal principles before extensive discovery begins. The company highlights that Carano’s recent actions—such as deposing Disney officials and requesting a large volume of documents—underscore the need for a timely appellate review to avoid protracted legal disputes.

Gene Schaerr, representing Carano, criticized Disney’s motion as lacking merit, suggesting it is an unnecessary delay tactic. Representatives for Disney, Lucasfilm, and Huckleberry Industries have yet to comment on the matter.

Carano’s legal team includes Donald M. Falk, Eugene Volokh, Gene C. Schaerr, H. Christopher Bartolomucci, and Edward H. Trent of Schaerr Jaffe LLP, while Disney’s defense is led by Daniel M. Petrocelli, Molly M. Lens, Kristin Macdonnell, Jonathan D. Hacker, and Joshua Revesz of O'Melveny & Myers LLP.