ABC‘s last time carrying the Super Bowl in February 2006 was a memorable one, with then-hot sophomore drama Grey’s Anatomy delivering one of the most talked about lead-out programs in the history of the Big Game, Part 1 of a bomb-themed two-episode arc that drew 38.1 million viewers.

Twenty years later, ABC is picking up where it left off, slotting its flagship series that is also early in its run, High Potential, immediately following Super Bowl LXI on ABC and Disney+ on Sunday, Feb. 14, 2027. Like Grey’s Anatomy, I hear High Potential is planning a two-parter, with the special post-Super Bowl episode as Part 1, ending on a cliffhanger that will be resolved in Part 2 airing in the show’s regular time slot the following Tuesday.

The upcoming Season 3 of High Potential will not launch after the Super Bowl; the series starring Kaitlin Olson is expected to return earlier, likely in January. (For the first time in its run, High Potential is not on the fall schedule this season.)

Olson announced the news of the special post-Super Bowl epsiode Monday night in a promo that ran on-air and online during Monday Night Football.

Super Bowl LXI will air on ABC, ESPN and Disney+, which explains why High Potential will stream on Disney+ for the first time outside of the bundle. Its streaming home is on fellow Disney platform Hulu, both for next day episodes and previous seasons.

In 2000, ABC also aired Part 1 of a two-part episode of a popular drama series, The Practice, after the Super Bowl.

High Potential finished the 2025/2026 broadcast season as the No. 1 show in adults 18-49 (3.35 rating) and the No. 3 show among total viewers (16.01 million) over 35 days of viewing on ABC, Hulu, Hulu on Disney+ and digital platforms.

The series follows a single mom with an exceptional mind (Olson), whose unconventional knack for solving crimes leads to an unusual and unstoppable partnership with a by-the-book seasoned detective.

High Potential stars Olson as Morgan, Daniel Sunjata as Karadec, Javicia Leslie as Daphne, Deniz Akdeniz as Lev “Oz” Ozdil, Amirah J as Ava, Matthew Lamb as Elliot, and Judy Reyes as Selena. 20th Television produces the series, which is based on the French format Haut Potentiel Intellectuel (HPI) and was created in the U.S. by Drew Goddard.

Goddard and Sarah Esberg of Goddard Textiles, new showrunners Nora and Lilla Zuckerman and Olson serve as executive producers. Andrea Massaro (Goddard Textiles) is a co-executive producer.

News that the Justice Department is investigating five major networks for suspending the White House TV pool last month was met with outcry that it was another example of Trump administration retaliation against the media.

Alarming as it may be to First Amendment groups, among antitrust experts, there are doubts that the DOJ would have much of a case.

Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act restricts competitors that restrain competition. In this case, the five networks that make up the TV pool — CNN, Fox News, ABC News, CBS News and NBC News — last month withheld their participation to protest the White House’s exclusion of CNN. For about four days, that meant fewer video images and other coverage of Trump that week, including the ceremonies surrounding the visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping.

William Kovacic, global competition professor of law and policy at George Washington University, said, “I think you have to take any lawsuit from the Department of Justice seriously.”

But he said an antitrust claim against the networks likely would have a “very remote prospect of success.”

At issue is “what is the predominant character of the behavior: Is it a commercial interest or is it designed to achieve some form of First Amendment expression?”

“To me, if there is a commercial aim to this, it is well hidden,” said Kovacic, a former chairman of the Federal Trade Commission.

Diana Moss, vice president and director of competition policy at the Progressive Policy Institute, said via email, “Group boycotts are illegal when they stifle competition, such as forcing a competitor(s) out of the market.”

She added, “Presumably, the arrangement among the five networks is designed to increase coordination and efficiency in the distribution of news footage. There is no anti-competitive intent or effect. The networks were responding in solidarity to repression of a free press (1st Amendment).”

Court Precedence

The lines between commercial conduct and protected First Amendment activity can be blurred, but courts have sided with boycotting parties even then.

Sam Weinstein, professor at Cardozo School of Law and former attorney in the DOJ’s Antitrust Division, said that “typically a non commercial boycott is protected by the First Amendment.”

“It would seem to be a non starter,” he said.

He cited the Supreme Court’s 1982 decision in NAACP vs. Claiborne Hardware Co., involving an organized 1960s-era boycott of white-owned businesses in Mississippi. The justices held that the state could not hold the protesters liable for damages when they engage in lawful activity protected by the First Amendment.

Weinstein also referred to another Supreme Court case, FTC vs. Superior Court Trial Lawyers, when the justices ruled that a boycott by court-appointed lawyers for indigent defendants violated antitrust law, as its purpose was to to gain increased compensation. The majority compared it to horizontal price fixing.

The latter case, Weinstein said, is different from what happened with the TV pool. Prices and compensation were not at issue.

It’s still unclear whether the networks will comply with the DOJ investigative request, but the networks already made it clear that they were jointly suspending participation in the pool, releasing a statement that “no administration should restrict a news organization because it objects to its reporting.”

“The real question is a question of law, not a question of fact,” Weinstein said.

In a statement, a spokesperson for the DOJ said over the weekend, “Members of the television press pool have boycotted covering White House events. Group boycotts among commercial competitors can violate the Sherman Act. The Antitrust Division is simply investigating to determine whether these news organizations have violated the antitrust laws.”

“An End Run Around”

Democrats already have accused the Trump administration of politicizing the Antitrust Division, violating the norms that have separated the White House from the DOJ since the Nixon era. The investigation of the networks is likely to add another example to their arguments.

Bob Corn-Revere, chief counsel for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said via email, “Threatening an antitrust investigation is just another example of this Administration misusing regulatory authority to punish the media for doing something the President dislikes. Political boycotts are part of a longstanding American tradition and are protected under First Amendment law.”

He added, “Whether the government’s excuses are dressed up as ‘national security’ or antitrust law, this is another attempt by the Administration trying to make an end run around the First Amendment to control news coverage.”