The commission says ABC has not shown that an early review of eight Disney-owned TV stations was retaliation for the network’s programming, while ABC argues the licensing process is being used to pressure its speech.
The Federal Communications Commission is asking a federal court to throw out ABC’s First Amendment lawsuit, rejecting the network’s claim that the agency’s decision to accelerate its broadcast-license review was retaliation for ABC’s programming and political coverage.
The filing puts the dispute before a federal judge just weeks before a hearing expected during the week of October 5.
ABC sued the FCC last month, describing the license review as an “extraordinary assault” on its free-speech rights. The network argues that the commission is using its regulatory authority over eight ABC-owned local stations to exert pressure over content.
At the center of the case is a disagreement over why the FCC ordered ABC’s stations to begin the renewal process years ahead of schedule.
Why the FCC says ABC’s license review began early
The FCC’s position is that the accelerated review was not triggered by Jimmy Kimmel, The View, President Donald Trump or any other ABC programming dispute.
Instead, the commission points to an investigation into allegations of discriminatory employment practices at Disney and ABC.
The Enforcement Bureau began investigating the allegations in 2025 after FCC Chairman Brendan Carr directed the agency to examine reports of racially or otherwise discriminatory practices at Disney. The commission says that, after roughly a year, Disney’s responses to information requests were deficient and nonresponsive.
That led to another step in the regulatory process.
On April 28, 2026, the FCC’s Media Bureau ordered Disney to file license-renewal applications for its licensed television stations within 30 days. Under the normal schedule, the stations would not have been due for renewal until dates ranging from 2028 to 2031.
Disney disputes the characterization of its cooperation. The company says it produced more than 11,000 pages of responsive documents under a mutually agreed schedule and that the Enforcement Bureau never indicated that its production was inadequate.
That disagreement over the underlying investigation now sits alongside the constitutional fight.
ABC links the review to a broader fight over speech
ABC’s lawsuit points to a series of public clashes involving Carr and Disney-owned programming.
One of the most prominent involved Jimmy Kimmel.
After Trump and Melania Trump publicly criticized a joke by Kimmel in April, Trump called for ABC to fire the late-night host. The following day, the FCC ordered Disney to move forward with early license renewals for its television stations.
When Carr was asked whether Kimmel’s comments would matter to the licensing process, he said Disney would have to demonstrate that its stations were operating in the public interest.
The FCC later became involved in another dispute surrounding The View. The agency opened a formal review of whether the daytime program qualified for an exemption from equal-time requirements, with Carr arguing that Disney and the program had not established that it was bona fide news programming.
Then came another point of friction involving Trump.
Carr said the FCC would consider ABC’s decision not to carry a live broadcast of a presidential address concerning U.S. election security as part of the broader review. He argued that broadcasters should carry important presidential addresses.
ABC sees the sequence differently. Its lawsuit argues that these public confrontations help establish that the license process is connected to disputes over speech and programming.
The FCC maintains that the events are being improperly tied together.
The legal fight is now about more than programming
The most consequential part of the FCC’s latest filing is its challenge to ABC’s legal theory and the court’s authority to hear the case.
For ABC to succeed on a First Amendment retaliation claim, the network must establish a connection between protected speech and the government action it is challenging.
The commission argues that ABC has not shown the necessary causal link—or demonstrated that hostility toward protected speech was the decisive reason for the early renewal order.
The FCC instead points to the Disney discrimination investigation and what it describes as inadequate responses to its requests for information.
The agency is also challenging the route ABC has taken to court.
According to the filing, Congress has placed limits on judicial review of FCC orders, with federal appeals courts serving as the appropriate venue for challenges to agency action. The commission argues that ABC cannot bypass that framework simply by presenting its challenge as a First Amendment retaliation lawsuit in federal district court.
That jurisdictional argument could become critical before the court ever reaches the larger constitutional dispute.
The FCC is also asking the court not to halt the renewal process while the case proceeds. It argues that a preliminary injunction would interfere with an administrative process that has not yet reached a final decision.
The stations, meanwhile, can continue broadcasting while their renewal applications are pending. Even if an application were ultimately denied, the commission says judicial review would remain available.
More than 153,000 comments have been filed
The dispute has also generated an unusually large public response.
The FCC says it received 153,716 public comments related to the proceeding.
The agency notes that Disney and ABC promoted the opportunity to comment across the eight ABC stations involved in the renewal process.
The size of the response adds another layer to a case already drawing attention because it sits at the intersection of broadcast regulation, politics and First Amendment rights.
But the number of comments does not resolve the central legal question: whether the FCC’s decision to accelerate the renewal process was a legitimate regulatory action or an unconstitutional response to protected speech.
What happens next
The case is before U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan in the District of Columbia.
The FCC wants the complaint dismissed, arguing both that ABC has not established a viable First Amendment retaliation claim and that the district court is not the proper forum for challenging the agency’s order.
ABC, by contrast, is seeking to establish that the early license review cannot be separated from the government’s repeated public disputes with Disney and its programming.
The court is expected to consider the matter during the week of October 5.
For now, the broadcast-license process continues while the two sides fight over a more fundamental question: whether the FCC’s actions were ordinary regulatory enforcement or an attempt to exert government pressure on a broadcaster’s speech.
