Trump admin fights ABC lawsuit as watchdogs worry Disney will settle with FCC

FCC tells court it is “open-minded” about whether ABC should lose licenses.

The Federal Communications Commission yesterday urged a court to dismiss a Disney lawsuit and let the FCC continue a proceeding that could end in the nonrenewal of ABC’s broadcast licenses.

Meanwhile, two watchdog groups and individual viewers of ABC stations are trying to intervene in the lawsuit, saying they are worried Disney will agree to a settlement with the FCC that isn’t in the public’s interest. Disney opposed the motion, and a judge will have to decide whether the groups and individuals can act as intervenors in the case.

Disney sued the FCC on August 18, saying the agency is waging a “campaign of censorship” to retaliate against ABC for speech that President Trump doesn’t like. As the lawsuit gets underway, Trump continued his attacks on the media last weekend by demanding that the FCC punish or rebuke an NBC journalist for saying he has “mixed results” in his election endorsements.

The FCC filed a motion to dismiss the Disney lawsuit yesterday, defending the early license review that it ordered for the eight broadcast stations owned by ABC. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has threatened ABC over jokes made by Jimmy Kimmel and political content on The View, but the FCC claims the early license review is strictly about other matters and that no decision has been made.

FCC says Chairman Carr is “open-minded”

The FCC filing in US District Court for the District of Columbia said the proceeding is only about “allegations of unlawful discrimination” related to Disney’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies. The FCC wants the court to toss the lawsuit entirely, or at least deny Disney’s request for a preliminary injunction that would halt the license review pending the outcome of litigation. The FCC said:

The Commission’s Chairman has repeatedly emphasized that, although the allegations against Disney are serious, he and the agency remain “open-minded,” have “not made a decision,” and are “going to follow the facts and the law wherever they [lead].” And the renewal process in progress does not abridge or otherwise affect Plaintiffs’ rights. Licensees with pending renewal applications are entitled to continue operating without interruption during the license period for the duration of the renewal proceeding—even were it to result in a hearing. In fact, even if the Commission were to deny the stations’ applications, their licenses would remain in effect for however long they might wish to seek judicial review.

The FCC alleged that Disney’s responses to the commission’s investigative inquiries “were deficient and nonresponsive,” necessitating the order for an early license review. The agency also said the district court lacks jurisdiction because FCC orders are reviewed by circuit appeals courts.

“Granting Plaintiffs’ request would mean taking administrative processes off the table before the Commission has seen and analyzed the voluminous evidence,” the FCC said. “This would only hobble the Commission’s efforts to investigate and resolve serious allegations that Disney has engaged in unlawful discrimination, and from otherwise ensuring that Disney’s stations are serving the public interest. Plaintiffs, in return, would only free themselves from the burdens of proving their case in administrative proceedings.”

In exchange for licenses to use spectrum, “Congress has required broadcasters to operate in the public interest,” the FCC said. “To foreclose the Commission from using all the tools at its disposal to investigate whether Plaintiffs are meeting their statutory and regulatory duties would seriously harm both the government and the public.”

Watchdogs and viewers don’t want Disney to settle

Disney argued that the license review is inhibiting its right to free speech. The proceeding could “mir[e] ABC in years of costly litigation, with the threat of adverse action ever present and with every editorial judgment shadowed by the prospect of provoking the Administration into further retaliation,” the lawsuit said.

Disney said ABC is being harmed by the license review during the run-up to this year’s elections. “Plaintiffs must make editorial judgments about how to cover the election in the shadow of a threatened corporate death sentence, and the Commission has every incentive to let that threat loom as long as possible. Nor can that harm be undone after the fact,” Disney said.

In the meantime, there is a dispute between Disney and groups that want to be part of the case against the FCC. Frequency Forward and the Media Action Center filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit, saying they want to prevent a settlement between Disney and the FCC. The two groups were joined in the motion to intervene by 18 individuals who are viewers of their local ABC stations.

“Proposed Intervenors are FCC watchdog non-profits and regular viewers of ABC stations in their home markets who are harmed by the FCC’s actions and face further harm to the extent the Plaintiffs continue to succumb to the agency’s pressure, possibly by negotiating a settlement which limits the content provided by the ABC stations,” Frequency Forward and the Media Action Center told the court.

Although Disney and ABC are advocating for their First Amendment right to be free of governmental interference, “their corporate interests may not necessarily align” with the interests of viewers and the advocacy groups, the filing said. In December 2024, ABC agreed to a $15 million payment to settle a lawsuit that Trump filed over statements made by George Stephanopoulos.

Disney says it will “vigorously” fight censorship

Disney opposed the motion in a filing yesterday, saying the “proposed intervenors lack a legally protected interest because the harm they invoke is harm to Plaintiffs, not to themselves. And the broader injury they claim on behalf of the viewing public is a generalized grievance shared by all viewers, which cannot support intervention.”

Disney said that it, ABC, and the ABC-owned stations “have every incentive to protect their own right to be free of unlawful retaliation” and will “vigorously contest Defendants’ unlawful, speech-suppressing conduct.” Disney said the groups and individuals can instead file an amicus brief to make their views known to the court “at the appropriate stage in the litigation.”

Art Belendiuk, a lawyer for the groups seeking to intervene, said in a statement provided to Ars that they will continue making their case to the court.

“The FCC’s pressure campaign against Disney has already forced the company to compromise its reporting and programming, as it outlined in its lawsuit, harming countless viewers across the United States. While Disney can argue that our interests are aligned, that may not always be true,” Belendiuk said. “Disney has a legal and fiduciary obligation to its shareholders, and its corporate interest is in preserving its licenses. My clients are fighting in the public interest to protect and preserve the integrity of the First Amendment. The American people deserve a seat at the table, and we are confident that the judge will agree.”

Disney acknowledged in its lawsuit that it changed coverage because of the FCC’s actions. With The View facing a separate FCC proceeding related to the equal-time rule, “ABC must now evaluate any invitation to a political candidate for its potential consequences, including whether it might later be cited by the Commission as a basis for non-renewal in the Stations’ impending license renewal proceedings,” the lawsuit said. The View hasn’t aired any interviews of political candidates since the FCC began the proceeding that could revoke the show’s bona fide news exemption to the equal-time rule.