10
Loading video...
By Amanda Castro
Associate News Editor
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
The Walt Disney Company asked a federal judge Tuesday to halt an early Federal Communications Commission (FCC) review of licenses held by eight company-owned television stations.
The case could help define when presidential criticism followed by regulatory action crosses into unconstitutional retaliation. Its outcome may affect how freely broadcasters make editorial decisions while facing federal scrutiny.
Disney attorney Beth Wilkinson told U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan that the review left Disney-owned ABC with its head beneath a regulatory “guillotine,” forcing the network to consider whether its programming could prompt further action.
Read More on U.S.
The FCC rejected that characterization, arguing that ABC’s licenses will remain valid during the review and any legal challenges. The commission says it is investigating Disney’s employment practices, not punishing the company for its programming.
First Amendment lawyer Jeff Lewis says that the case stands apart because public criticism of ABC preceded the licensing action.
“This is not a routine licensing dispute,” Lewis told Newsweek. “Its significance comes from the allegation that the government is using a regulatory tool, license review, as leverage over editorial content.”
...
Why Disney Says the FCC Review Violates the First Amendment
Disney alleges that the FCC accelerated its review because President Donald Trump and FCC Chairman Brendan Carr objected to ABC’s coverage and programming. The company says the process amounts to retaliation against protected speech.
The FCC announced the review in April, one day after Trump called for ABC to fire late-night host Jimmy Kimmel over a joke about the president and first lady Melania Trump. Trump has also criticized ABC News and The View and urged regulators to act against broadcasters he considers biased.
The timing could supply key circumstantial evidence if Disney’s retaliation claim proceeds, Lewis said.
“Motive is everything in a retaliation case, and that timeline is the kind of evidence these cases are built on,” he said.
Partner at Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder and former federal prosecutor Chris Mattei told Newsweek, "The timing matters because the announcement of the premature review came soon after ABC broadcast material that the Administration publicly complained was unfavorable. This suggests that the state purpose of the review is pretextual and that the actual purpose is to punish ABC for its speech."
Andrew Stoltmann, a constitutional attorney and adjunct law professor at Northwestern University, told Newsweek the government’s use of licensing authority could create a dangerous precedent.
“It is mostly a thinly veiled free speech attack under a disingenuous guise of a licensing dispute,” Stoltmann said.
The court has not determined that the FCC acted in retaliation. The commission maintains that its review is a legitimate exercise of its regulatory authority.
Why the Timing of the ABC License Reviews Matters
The ABC station licenses were not scheduled for renewal until October 2028 at the earliest, with most remaining valid until 2030 or 2031. The FCC had not initiated a comparable early review in more than 50 years, according to Disney.
Lewis said that history could bolster the company’s claim that the stated reason for the review is a pretext. The FCC, however, says its investigation of Disney’s diversity, equity and inclusion programs and employment practices explains the accelerated scrutiny.
“If the agency can’t articulate a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason that explains why now, the timing starts to look like the retaliation itself,” Lewis said.
John Boschini, a professor of media law and ethics at the University of North Carolina Greensboro and an attorney at Taylor Legal Services, said the public comments from federal officials could receive unusual attention from the court.
“Rarely has the federal government been so upfront about its distaste for individual broadcasters or bigger personalities, like you have in situations with Jimmy Kimmel,” Boschini told Newsweek.
Related Story
The FCC Targeting Disney is Another Trump Attack on Press Freedom | Opinion
When FCC Oversight Could Become Government Pressure
Television networks don't require federal licenses, but individual stations need FCC authorization to use public airwaves. The commission assesses whether license holders operate in the public interest, and it normally conducts renewals on staggered schedules.
The central question is whether the agency is conducting a lawful investigation or using that authority to burden ABC over content that federal officials dislike. Nikolas Guggenberger, an assistant professor at the University of Houston Law Center, said an investigation can begin well before any license is revoked.
“A broadcast license is essential to operating a television station,” Guggenberger told Newsweek. “Threatening adverse licensing action can influence editorial decisions long before a license is actually lost.”
Danny Karon, an attorney and law professor, said the licensing process is the mechanism in the case, but the underlying issue is possible government interference with editorial judgment.
Lewis compared the dispute to the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in National Rifle Association v. Vullo, which concerned allegations that a government official used regulatory authority to suppress protected advocacy. Disney’s case could test how that anti-coercion principle applies to FCC licensing, he said.
“There’s a line between a president criticizing coverage, which is itself protected speech, and the machinery of government being deployed to punish the critic,” Lewis said.
ABC Says the Review Is Already Chilling Its Programming
Disney argues that the review has already affected decisions at The View. Its court filings say producers became more cautious about inviting candidates or airing footage involving political figures after the FCC questioned whether equal-opportunity rules applied to the program.
A Kimmel interview with James Talarico, a Democratic U.S. Senate candidate in Texas, was published online rather than broadcast because of the regulatory threat.
Guggenberger said broadcasters may become more cautious if they believe controversial programming could prompt action against their licenses. Still, he said, the FCC must remain able to investigate genuine violations.
“The challenge is to distinguish legitimate investigations from those used as pretext to pressure broadcasters over their programming,” Guggenberger said.
Boschini said smaller broadcasters could feel even greater pressure because they lack Disney’s resources to sustain an expensive legal fight.
“If you’re a smaller broadcaster that doesn’t have millions of dollars to throw at attorneys’ fees,” he said, companies may be more willing to accommodate the government rather than litigate.
FCC Says Disney Sued Too Soon
The FCC argues that Disney is trying to stop an administrative process before the commission has reached a final decision. Carr has said the agency has not decided whether to refer the licenses for a public hearing or take other action.
Commission lawyers also contend that Disney’s case is premature and belongs before a federal appeals court rather than a district court. Those arguments raise questions about jurisdiction, ripeness and whether Disney can show immediate harm.
Disney says waiting for a final decision would ignore the injury it is already experiencing. The company argues that uncertainty over the licenses is influencing editorial decisions and creating legal and operational costs.
Lewis said a procedural victory for the FCC could leave broadcasters unable to challenge an early review while the threat of nonrenewal remains unresolved.
“That gap between threat and final action is where the chilling effect lives,” he said.
What Judge Loren AliKhan’s Questions Could Signal
AliKhan is weighing Disney’s request for temporary relief alongside the FCC’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The immediate questions include whether Disney is likely to prevail, whether it faces irreparable harm and whether the district court can hear the case now.
Lewis said questions about why the FCC acted when it did would suggest that AliKhan is engaging with Disney’s retaliation claim. A greater focus on jurisdiction and the absence of final agency action would favor the commission.
“Dwelling on motive and timing favors Disney; dwelling on forum and finality favors the FCC,” Lewis said.
Guggenberger said another key issue is whether the judge accepts Disney’s argument that the review has already affected editorial choices. AliKhan asked Tuesday for more information about the history of political candidates appearing on The View.
Boschini cautioned that the hearing may not produce an immediate decision. He said the judge’s questions about the FCC’s stated rationale may prove more revealing than any single exchange.
What the Case Could Mean for Other Broadcasters
A Disney victory could signal that courts will closely examine licensing actions that follow presidential attacks on a network. It could also limit the FCC’s ability to accelerate reviews without a documented regulatory reason unrelated to protected speech.
A victory for the commission could make early judicial intervention more difficult, leaving broadcasters subject to extended investigations before they can challenge the government in court.
Karon said a ruling for the FCC could encourage greater scrutiny of broadcasters based on their editorial content, while a ruling for ABC would reinforce editorial independence. Stoltmann warned that allowing the review to proceed could have a “massive chilling effect” on independent coverage.
The case has also produced unusual ideological alliances. Conservative organizations, including the Cato Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute and Institute for Policy Innovation, have opposed the government’s position. Republican congressional fundraising groups have supported the FCC.
Nearly 20 former FCC officials submitted briefs supporting Disney, Lewis said. Mark Fowler, a Republican who chaired the commission under President Ronald Reagan, has also sided with ABC.
Could the Disney-FCC Fight Become a Landmark Case?
The dispute may never produce a definitive First Amendment ruling. AliKhan could resolve the immediate case on procedural grounds by finding that Disney sued too soon or filed in the wrong court.
Boschini said that uncertainty makes it difficult to predict a lasting Supreme Court precedent. Politically charged cases can take years to reach the court and may be settled, withdrawn or overtaken by a change in administration.
Lewis nevertheless called the dispute the most consequential broadcaster case in years because it combines a major network, a highly unusual licensing action and allegations that federal power was deployed against disfavored speech.
“Whether it becomes landmark or footnote depends on whether the case reaches the merits,” Lewis said. “But as a test of whether licensing power can be used to police viewpoints, it’s the most significant broadcaster case in years.”
Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Samantha Beech and Sam Wilson.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines