Is the era of media giants kowtowing to the Trump administration over?

The Walt Disney Company drew a line in the sand on Tuesday when its network sued the Federal Communications Commission to stop early reviews of licenses held by eight ABC-owned television stations, alleging the process is intended to chill protected speech.

The lawsuit marks the first time a major broadcaster has taken the Trump-era FCC to court over alleged retaliation for its editorial decisions, marking a notable shift from other media organizations. Over the last several months, Disney has taken a more combative posture with the FCC proceedings, even launching a viewer awareness campaign about the issue.

For Disney CEO Josh D’Amaro, who took the reins in March, it represents a stark reversal of the company’s more accommodating approach under former CEO Bob Iger, who sought to ease tensions with President Donald Trump, settling his defamation lawsuit against ABC and briefly suspending late night host Jimmy Kimmel following his remarks on Charlie Kirk’s assassination (Iger maintains Kimmel was pulled because of the “bad taste” joke).

“Disney has a far stronger case against Carr than Carr has against Disney,” Blair Levin, a New Street Research analyst and former FCC chief of staff, told TheWrap. “I doubt any court would uphold Carr’s failure to renew Disney’s license.”

But whether Disney’s lawsuit is ultimately successful or changes the broader media industry’s willingness to push back against the agency remains to be seen. Over the last year and a half, several major media companies have aimed to avoid confrontations with Trump, including Paramount, which settled his lawsuit over the “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris while seeking regulatory approval for its Skydance merger.

Experts told TheWrap that a win by Disney could embolden other players to push back against the FCC’s threats, although a loss could expand the chilling effect the agency has already cast over the industry.

Disney is asking a federal judge to immediately halt the accelerated license reviews, arguing the FCC is using its regulatory authority to punish constitutionally protected speech and pressure ABC into changing its programming.

The FCC said all broadcasters, “even Disney,” must operate in the public interest. The commission said it has been investigating allegations of illegal DEI discrimination at Disney for more than a year, accused the company of waging a “campaign of disinformation” and pledged to “follow the facts and law wherever they lead.”

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr told CNN’s Brian Stelter on Tuesday that he had not made a final decision on the “next steps in this review.”

Blake Reid, a University of Colorado Boulder law professor who specializes in telecommunications and free speech, told TheWrap that ABC’s First Amendment case is “about as strong as they come,” citing Carr’s public statements and the commission’s conduct as “pretty clear” evidence of retaliation.

Disney makes its case

The feud between the entertainment giant and regulator dates back to April, when the FCC ordered all eight ABC-owned stations to apply for license renewals years earlier than scheduled. Six had not reached the halfway point of their current eight-year terms, according to ABC’s lawsuit, and the stations were given 30 days to prepare applications that typically take months.

The order came a week after the president and first lady Melania Trump again called for Kimmel’s firing following a joke comparing her to an “expectant widow.” The FCC said the accelerated reviews were needed as part of its existing investigation into allegations that Disney’s diversity, equity and inclusion practices violated federal law and whether the stations were operating in the public interest. Conservative groups later asked the commission to deny the renewals, citing alleged discrimination and political bias.

The FCC is also separately reviewing ABC’s request for “The View” to qualify for a “bona fide news” exemption from an equal-opportunities requirement for political candidates. A month after updating its guidance to exclude late night and daytime talk shows from that exemption, the agency began investigating the program after Texas state Rep. James Talarico, a Democratic Senate candidate, appeared as a guest. Carr later said ABC’s decision to limit its coverage of Trump’s July primetime address would also factor into the license review.

In its suit, ABC argues that the FCC’s stated rationale is a pretext for punishing the network over its programming. The company said it has received more than 600 requests for information and documents and produced over 13,000 pages in response. Its filing contends that the burden and uncertainty are themselves part of the punishment, regardless of whether the commission ultimately denies the renewals or leaves them unresolved for years.

“We’re very principled on this,” D’Amaro said in a CNBC interview during Disney’s D23 Expo last week. “We’re not going to be told how to run that side of our business.”

Anna Gomez, the lone Democratic commissioner at the FCC, wrote on X: “I’m glad Disney has shown courage and stepped up. It is time this administration understands that the Constitution does not bend to political convenience, and that the First Amendment protects news and commentary even when those in power wish it didn’t.” 

ABC’s filings argue that the pressure has already affected its editorial decisions. The company said no political candidates have appeared on “The View” since the FCC opened its inquiry into the program and that the show passed on further consideration of several potential guests. ABC also said it livestreamed Trump’s July address on election fraud partly because of concerns about government retaliation, noting it would not traditionally have decided to carry it.

Those examples could help ABC establish that government pressure caused its speech to be altered or suppressed, Reid said. 

Procedural complications

The harder question is whether the district court can intervene before the FCC finishes its review.

Companies ordinarily must wait for an agency’s final decision before going to court, with appeals of FCC decisions generally going directly to a federal appeals court. Though the public comment period on the proceedings has concluded, the FCC has not publicly disclosed a specific timeline for when it will make decisions on the matters.

ABC argues it should not have to endure a proceeding that is itself unconstitutional and already affecting its programming. Reid said the company has a “really solid argument” for immediate district court review, although whether the court agrees remains the tougher question.

The case to secure a temporary restraining order could move quickly. It has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan, an appointee of President Joe Biden, who ordered ABC and the FCC to submit a proposed briefing schedule by noon on Thursday as the court looks to set up a hearing. If a temporary restraining order is secured, the judge would then have to listen to arguments on whether to grant a preliminary injunction. Appeals related to the matter could extend the legal battle even further.

“I don’t think we’re going to see this resolved this week or this month, or probably not this year,” Reid said. “But beyond that, who knows.”

Ramifications down the line

Not everyone agrees Disney’s case is clear cut.

Daniel Suhr, president of the Center for American Rights, which challenged the stations’ license renewals, called the lawsuit an attempt to “short circuit” the investigation. He said the First Amendment does not give Disney “a free pass on its obligations as an FCC licensee.”

There’s always the chance that the FCC could prevail in the legal battle, which other companies could see as a signal to keep their own heads down.

“If the FCC wins, I think they would be emboldened to continue or it would just have a chilling effect,” Corey Martin, managing partner and chair of Granderson Des Rochers LLP’s Entertainment Finance Practice, told TheWrap. “If Disney is not successful in this matter, then I don’t think that you’re going to see any other companies stepping up or coming forward to fight this particular fight or anything similar to it.”

Levin said the impact could extend beyond ABC’s licenses by clarifying how the First Amendment limits the FCC’s ability to invoke the broad “public interest” standard. Such a ruling could become relevant in future disputes involving station licenses or media mergers, including any FCC effort to block a deal for reasons unrelated to competition.

But Bob Corn-Revere, chief counsel at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, called the FCC’s actions “a textbook case of abuse of the regulatory process for an unconstitutional purpose.” FIRE previously filed comments opposing efforts to deny the ABC stations’ early license-renewal applications.

Corn-Revere said a broad ruling for ABC could limit the FCC’s ability to shift to other regulatory tactics and give other media companies a road map for resisting government pressure.

“To the extent they show that it’s possible to stand up to this kind of illegal jawboning and regulatory pressure, the more I would expect other people will recognize that that is really the smart course to take,” he said.