ABC and Disney Sue FCC Over Early License Review and First Amendment Retaliation

ABC and its parent company Walt Disney Co. filed a federal First Amendment lawsuit on Tuesday against the Federal Communications Commission, seeking an immediate court order to halt early broadcast license reviews targeting eight network-owned television stations.

In the lawsuit, ABC, its parent company Disney and the eight ABC-owned stations whose licenses are affected asked a federal court to stop the early renewal proceedings.

The court filing challenges an unprecedented April order by FCC Chairman Brendan Carr subjecting all eight station licenses to early administrative review years before their scheduled statutory expirations. The network-owned stations facing early review include major-market broadcast properties WABC-TV in New York, KABC-TV in Los Angeles, WLS-TV in Chicago, WPVI-TV in Philadelphia, KGO-TV in San Francisco, KTRK-TV in Houston, WTVD in Raleigh-Durham, and KFSN-TV in Fresno.

“Again and again, the Administration has attacked ABC’s speech — the stories its journalists report and the viewpoints its network programs air,” the network alleged in its lawsuit Tuesday. “Over time, those attacks have escalated into express demands that ABC be stripped of its broadcast licenses because of its speech.”

“Facing this existential threat,” it added, “Plaintiffs have no choice but to seek redress from the judicial branch for the Administration’s blatant retaliation for their First Amendment speech.”

In its complaint, ABC invoked Section 326 of the Communications Act of 1934, which prohibits the regulatory agency from exercising censorial powers over broadcast signals or interfering with free speech rights. Under Section 307(c) of the statute, television broadcast licenses are issued for standard eight-year terms, with early revocation proceedings historically limited to severe technical breaches or corporate criminal convictions.

The complaint stated that ABC had “no alternative means to eliminate these ongoing and immediate threats other than total capitulation to the Administration’s demands,” formally requesting the court to “immediately enjoin Defendants from taking or threatening to take any action against Plaintiffs in relation to the early license renewal applications.”

The commission’s early license review followed public criticism of President Donald Trump by ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel. Following Kimmel’s broadcast comments, Carr publicly warned the network, stating: “We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways . . . to take action . . . on Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

Carr, appointed FCC chairman by Trump in November 2025 after serving as a commissioner since 2017, cited network diversity, equity, and inclusion practices alongside broadcast public interest standards to justify the early review. Outside of the ABC proceeding, Carr has opened separate administrative investigations into broadcast television networks CBS News and NBC News.

The lawsuit also cited ongoing regulatory action by Carr attempting to subject daytime talk show “The View” to federal equal-time rules under Section 315 of the Communications Act. ABC noted in court filings that the commission formally recognized “The View” as a bona fide news program exempt from equal-time requirements more than two decades ago.

Addressing broader broadcast industry implications, the lawsuit warned of systemic risks to news gathering across the country. “The consequences of the Administration’s campaign against free speech reach well beyond ABC,” the filing alleged. “If the Administration gets its way, the message to every media company in the country will be unmistakable: tell only the stories the Administration deems favorable, or face the coercive machinery of the federal government. In such a world, the press could in no way be described as free.”

The lawsuit added: “The FCC Chairman has left little doubt that this is his goal.”

First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams noted that while regulatory friction between the media and the commission is historically common, the current proceedings represent an unprecedented government campaign against broadcast news operations.

“There has long been a level of tension between the broadcast media, which seeks full First Amendment protection, and the FCC,” Abrams wrote in an email. “But not until the Trump Administration has the government so directly, so deliberately and so dangerously sought to limit the freedom of the broadcast press to cover and discuss the news.”

FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, the sole Democrat on the five-member regulatory body, backed the legal action, stating that the agency has misused its licensing authority against the network.

“For months, the FCC has waged a campaign of censorship and control against Disney’s ABC stations,” Gomez said in a statement, “using the threat of broadcast license revocations to punish a company for speech this administration doesn’t like.”

“I have long called on companies to push back against this kind of government intimidation, and I’m glad Disney has shown courage and stepped up,” Gomez added. “This should be a welcome sign for every broadcaster who has felt the weight of this overreaching government pressure in silence.”

Defending the commission’s reviews, an Federal Communications Commission spokesperson rejected the allegations in a statement released Tuesday.

“All broadcasters have a legal obligation to operate in the public interest — even Disney,” the commission spokesperson said. “The FCC has been examining claims that Disney engaged in illegal DEI discrimination for over a year. Disney is obviously very concerned about the FCC’s proceeding, as evidenced by their ongoing campaign of disinformation as well as their decision to ask a court to stop the FCC from further pursuing matters. The FCC will continue to follow the facts and law wherever they lead.”

Carr previously defended the agency during an interview on the Fox Business Network, asserting that broadcast licenses carry explicit statutory conditions. “You broadcasters get subsidized access, free access to a valuable public resource, the airwaves, worth billions of dollars. In exchange, you have to operate in the public interest,” Carr said, adding, “Look, as a country, we should have a trusted, respected news media, and we’re not there. So I hope more broadcasters return to their public interest obligations.”