ABC sues FCC over Disney station license review process

ABC lawsuit challenges an FCC review of eight Disney broadcast licenses, alleging President Trump's regulators are punishing protected speech.

ABC, owned by Walt Disney, filed the case Tuesday in federal court in Washington, D.C., and asked for emergency relief. The network is seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction that would stop the Federal Communications Commission's renewal process while the court considers the dispute.

Disney stations enter court fight

The filing puts a media company and the federal broadcast regulator into a direct constitutional fight over licensing power. ABC says the agency has moved from criticism of its programming to demands that its stations lose their licenses over what the network airs.

The company also asked the D.C. Circuit Court for a hearing, arguing that an internal FCC proceeding would leave it with little practical protection. In the suit, ABC said an unfavorable outcome inside the agency would be nearly certain if the renewal process continues.

Carr probe began with DEI

The dispute began last year, when FCC Chairman Brendan Carr opened an inquiry into Disney's diversity, equity and inclusion policies. Carr framed that review as an examination of whether the company's practices violated the agency's ban on unlawful discrimination.

ABC's filing presents the DEI inquiry differently, tying it to the administration's objections to the network's political commentary. The company pointed to programming on Jimmy Kimmel Live and The View , both of which have aired criticism of President Trump and his administration.

The licensing fight escalated in April after Kimmel made disparaging comments about President Trump and the president called for the host to be fired. Soon afterward, the FCC began an early renewal review for ABC's eight local broadcast stations, the group now at the center of the case.

Carr has said the review concerns Disney's DEI initiatives rather than the content of ABC's speech. The FCC and Carr did not immediately provide a response to a request for comment.

License revocations remain rare

Broadcast licenses give the FCC leverage that does not exist in the same way for cable networks, streaming platforms or print publishers. That leverage is why ABC is treating the renewal review as an immediate threat rather than a routine regulatory step.

License revocations tied to programming have been unusual in modern broadcasting. The last programming-related revocation cited in the case history came in 1969, when a Jackson, Mississippi, station lost its license after defending segregation on air.

The FCC also revoked licenses held by media company RKO in 1980, but that case centered on business misconduct and lack of candor rather than a station's editorial viewpoint. ABC's argument depends on that distinction: the company says the current proceeding targets speech, while Carr says the agency is reviewing corporate conduct.

The View faces equal-time scrutiny

The FCC has also opened a separate inquiry this year into whether The View should continue to qualify as a bona fide news program under equal-time rules. Those rules require broadcast and radio programs that host political candidates during elections to provide comparable access to their opponents unless an exemption applies.

The View has previously received an FCC exemption, according to ABC's filing. If the agency narrows that treatment, the decision could affect how daytime and talk programs handle political guests during campaign periods.

If the court grants temporary relief, Disney would gain time to challenge the FCC's authority before the licensing process advances. That outcome would also give other broadcasters a clearer path to contest regulatory reviews they view as tied to programming decisions.

If the court declines to intervene, ABC would have to fight the renewal process at the agency while arguing that the proceeding itself chills protected speech. The main unresolved issue is whether judges treat the FCC's actions as a discrimination inquiry, as Carr has described them, or as retaliation for editorial content, as ABC alleges.