ABC is pushing back hard against the FCC's attempt to toss its First Amendment lawsuit, arguing in a new court filing that the agency's early license review amounts to a political weapon aimed at punishing the network for its programming.
The network filed its opposition brief on Thursday, the Sept. 17 reply deadline set by a federal judge, directly challenging the FCC's Sept. 4 motion to dismiss the case. ABC's legal team accused FCC Chairman Brendan Carr of using the early license renewal process to hang what it called "the broadcaster death penalty of license non-renewal or revocation over Plaintiffs' every editorial decision." A hearing is set for the week of Oct. 5.
The filing marks the latest escalation in a legal clash that began when the FCC, under Carr's leadership, ordered Disney to submit early renewal applications for eight ABC-owned television stations, even though those licenses were not scheduled for renewal until 2028 or later. ABC contends the entire proceeding is retaliation for content the Trump administration has publicly criticized, including "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" and "The View." The FCC says it is investigating alleged unlawful discrimination in Disney's employment practices.
Hours before ABC filed its opposition, a bipartisan group of 18 former FCC chairmen, commissioners, and officials submitted an amicus brief backing the network's position. Their filing did not mince words: Carr violated the First Amendment "in plain view," they wrote, by issuing "broad threats and ominous warnings to the entire media ecosystem."
The former officials argued the FCC's actions have created "a regulatory regime in which any broadcaster, including ABC, can be found guilty of transgressions at any time for seemingly any thing." The Wrap reported on both filings Thursday.
That language matters. If 18 people who once ran or served at the FCC, from both parties, are willing to tell a federal judge the current chairman is chilling press freedom, the agency's claim that this is a routine regulatory matter becomes harder to sustain.
The amicus brief framed the case in constitutional terms:
"This case thus represents a critical opportunity for this Court to safeguard the constitutional rights to free speech and a free press that are foundational to our democracy."
ABC's opposition filing attacked the FCC's stated rationale head-on. The commission says its early review stems from an investigation into alleged unlawful discrimination in employment practices at Disney and ABC. But ABC argued that the FCC's own public statements reveal a different motive entirely.
"Those public statements underscore that the purpose of the Commission's call for early license renewal is not to investigate discrimination; it is to license viewpoints."
The filing also drew a line between Carr's personal opinions and his regulatory authority:
"Although the Chairman is free to express publicly that he dislikes Jimmy Kimmel or thinks that no one should watch 'The View,' he cannot threaten retaliatory enforcement against speech he dislikes. Such threats indisputably qualify as adverse action."
ABC further argued that the FCC's motions "improperly conflate the nature of Plaintiffs' retaliation claims." In July, the administration said ABC's decision to limit coverage of a Trump primetime address on election security would factor into the license review, a statement that, if accurate, ties the regulatory action directly to editorial choices rather than employment practices.
The dispute traces back more than a year. Carr launched a DEI investigation into Disney in March 2025, and the FCC issued its April 28 order requiring early renewal applications for all eight ABC-owned stations. Those stations include outlets in New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, major markets where license disruption would carry enormous financial and operational consequences. The New York Post reported that the FCC accelerated the renewal process roughly a year ahead of schedule.
The FCC has maintained that its actions are grounded in law. An FCC spokesperson told reporters that the agency had been examining claims of illegal DEI discrimination at Disney "for over a year," and that Disney was mounting "an ongoing campaign of disinformation." The spokesperson added: "All broadcasters have a legal obligation to operate in the public interest, even Disney." Breitbart reported that the FCC cited alleged violations of the Communications Act of 1934, including a prohibition against unlawful discrimination in hiring and workplace practices.
Disney, for its part, has produced over 13,000 pages of documents in cooperation with FCC investigations, even while objecting to the agency's demands. That level of compliance undercuts any suggestion that the company has stonewalled regulators. Fox News reported that ABC sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to halt the FCC proceedings when it initially filed suit last month.
Conservative watchdog groups have entered the fray as well. The Media Research Center and the Center for American Rights filed FCC submissions urging non-renewal of ABC's licenses, citing what they described as partisan electioneering and misinformation.
The central question the federal judge will face at the October hearing is whether the FCC's early license review is a lawful exercise of regulatory authority or an unconstitutional attempt to punish a broadcaster for its editorial decisions.
Both sides have plausible surface arguments. The FCC has statutory authority to review broadcast licenses and investigate employment practices. If Disney engaged in unlawful discrimination, hiring, promoting, or compensating employees based on race, gender, or other protected classes in ways that violate federal law, the commission has a legitimate interest in examining that conduct.
But ABC's case rests on a pattern that is difficult to explain away through regulatory routine alone. The timeline matters: the investigation launched after public feuds between the administration and ABC's programming. The acceleration of the renewal process, moving it years ahead of schedule, coincided with ongoing criticism of specific shows. And the July statement linking ABC's editorial choices on covering a presidential address to the license review is, if taken at face value, an admission that content is part of the calculus.
ABC's original lawsuit, filed in Washington, D.C., federal court, framed the stakes bluntly. The Washington Examiner reported that the suit alleged the administration "waged a retaliatory campaign against ABC for a single reason: it disapproves of what ABC broadcasts."
The FCC's motion to dismiss, filed Sept. 4, sought to end the lawsuit before it could reach that question. ABC's Thursday opposition filing is designed to keep the case alive long enough for the judge to weigh the evidence.
The judge has ordered a hearing for the week of Oct. 5. At that point, the court will likely address whether ABC's claims survive the motion to dismiss, essentially, whether the network has alleged enough to move forward with discovery and a full hearing on the merits.
If the case proceeds, the FCC could be forced to produce internal communications showing how and why the early license review was initiated. That discovery process could prove more revealing than any public filing.
ABC also previously settled a separate defamation lawsuit with President Trump, paying $1 million in legal fees and contributing $15 million to a nonprofit connected to his presidential library. That settlement predates the current license dispute but forms part of the broader backdrop of tension between the network and the administration.
For now, eight broadcast licenses hang in the balance, a bipartisan group of former regulators has told the court the current FCC chairman is threatening press freedom, and the network has put the agency's stated rationale on trial. The facts will either vindicate the FCC's position or expose it as pretextual. That is exactly the kind of question a federal court exists to resolve.
Government agencies that regulate speech had better have clean hands and clear reasons, because when regulators start picking winners based on viewpoint, every broadcaster's license is only as safe as its politics.
