ABC and Disney sue FCC, alleging First Amendment violations

Disney and ABC Take FCC to Court Over What They Call Retaliatory License Attacks

Ecorescuezone.com – In a filing that lands squarely at the intersection of broadcast regulation and constitutional speech rights, ABC and its parent company, the Walt Disney Co., brought a federal lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday. The complaint contends that the Trump administration, operating through the FCC, has launched investigations and moved to challenge the network’s broadcast licenses as punishment for its editorial choices — from hard-news reporting to late-night comedy sketches and daytime talk-show commentary.

The stakes extend well beyond one network. At issue is whether a federal agency can be wielded as an instrument of presidential displeasure against specific voices on the airwaves, a question that touches the core of First Amendment doctrine and the long-standing independence of broadcast licensing from partisan politics.

The Constitutional Argument

The complaint opens with a blunt declaration:

“Government censorship is deeply un-American.”

It then anchors its legal theory in a recent unanimous ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court involving the National Rifle Association, invoking the principle that the government may not

“use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.”

The plaintiffs frame the FCC’s conduct as a direct contravention of that principle:

“This case concerns the Administration’s sustained effort to do just that. The Administration has waged a retaliatory campaign against ABC for a single reason: it disapproves of what ABC broadcasts.”

The suit points to a trail of presidential social-media posts in which Trump singled out ABC’s news coverage, the daytime panel show The View, and late-night host Jimmy Kimmel — a comedian who has made frequent, pointed jokes at the president’s expense.

Eight Stations, One Unusual Move

ABC and Disney collectively own eight local television stations that carry the national network’s programming along with region-specific content. Six of those stations operate in the country’s largest television markets, making them material contributors to the network’s revenue. Because they transmit over public airwaves, each station holds a federal license renewed periodically through the FCC.

According to the complaint, the commission compelled all eight stations to enter the license-renewal scrutiny process years before their scheduled deadlines. The filing characterizes this as essentially unprecedented in the modern regulatory era — a move that effectively subjects the stations to a full administrative review on an accelerated timeline, with the practical effect of creating leverage and uncertainty around their continued operation.

Who Runs the FCC, and How

The commission’s chief, Brendan Carr, did not immediately respond to questions about the suit. Historically, the FCC has functioned as a quasi-independent body: the president’s party holds three of its five seats, while the opposition party holds two, a structure designed to insulate day-to-day regulatory decisions from the shifting winds of presidential politics.

Trump, however, stated publicly before taking office that he regarded the FCC as an extension of the executive branch rather than a separate branch of governance. Recent judicial decisions have narrowed the independence of several other Congress-created semi-autonomous agencies, and Carr has positioned himself as a vocal defender of the president’s public critiques of news organizations, including ABC specifically.

Carr has defended the early-renewal scrutiny by stating he is ensuring broadcasters operate in the public interest — a statutory obligation — and that they comply with Trump’s executive order addressing diversity, equity, and inclusion in media operations. Yet he has also been openly aligned with the president’s agenda, issuing pointed criticisms of ABC, Kimmel, The View, and its journalists.

In one particularly pointed remark, Carr warned that ABC and Disney could

“do this the easy way or the hard way”

amid the president’s public demand that Kimmel be removed from the air. The host was briefly suspended and returned to his show days later after a wave of public backlash.

A History of Settlements, Now Broken

Ironically, ABC had been the first among a string of major media companies and technology giants to reach a financial settlement with Trump over lawsuits he filed as a private citizen. In December 2024 — after his electoral victory but before his inauguration — the network paid $16 million to resolve a defamation action tied to remarks made by anchor George Stephanopoulos.

That quiet resolution appears to have done little to quiet the administration’s appetite for further confrontation. Given the president’s continuing public attacks on Kimmel, The View, and ABC’s newsroom, Disney has shifted to a markedly more assertive posture.

Speaking to CNBC’s Julia Boorstin last week, Disney CEO Josh D’Amaro — who assumed the top role from former chairman and CEO Bob Iger in March — laid out the company’s position:

“We’re very principled on this. We’re going to stand up to what we believe is journalistic and integrity, and we’re not going to be told how to run that side of our business.”

Iger, who remains on Disney’s board of directors, is now a business partner of Josh Kushner — brother of Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and diplomatic adviser — in a deal to acquire the NBA’s Los Angeles Lakers, a connection that adds a layer of personal entanglement to the broader corporate landscape.

What Other Outlets Are Watching

The ABC-FCC confrontation is unfolding under close observation across the media and technology sectors. CBS’s parent company Paramount, Meta, X, and Google have all struck settlements analogous to the one ABC reached to resolve Trump’s private lawsuits. The president has additionally filed ongoing private actions against the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and the BBC over their reporting.

For broadcasters specifically, the outcome of this suit will shape whether the FCC’s licensing apparatus can be deployed as a tool of editorial retaliation without triggering a full constitutional review. If the court accepts the plaintiffs’ framing, it would reinforce a bright line: that the government’s power to regulate the airwaves does not extend to punishing the content those airwaves carry. If it does not, the regulatory boundary between public-interest oversight and political retribution will remain contested for years to come.