Disney sues Trump’s FCC
Disney is asking a federal court to stop FCC chair Brendan Carr from taking the next steps against ABC’s station licenses.
Today’s First Amendment lawsuit against the FCC opens with a foundational principle: “Government censorship is deeply un-American.” Then it cites a 2024 Supreme Court ruling that the government may not “use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.”
“This case concerns the Administration’s sustained effort to do just that,” Disney’s lawyers argue. The suit is signed by Paul Clement, the famed conservative litigator.
Carr has not yet responded to my request for comment. But this lawsuit has been expected for some time, given the government’s highly aggressive actions against Disney, involving both “The View” and ABC’s local station licenses. Here are three key quotes from the filing:
>> The administration “has waged a retaliatory campaign against ABC for a single reason: it disapproves of what ABC broadcasts.”
>> “Plaintiffs come to this court reluctantly with no alternative means to eliminate these ongoing and immediate threats other than total capitulation to the administration’s demands.”
>> “The campaign is also calculated to operate in terrorem upon the rest of the industry: ABC is the visible target and suffers the most immediate harm, but the message is addressed to every broadcaster in the country, and the ultimate cost is borne by the press as a whole.”
And here’s the PDF of the suit so you can read it for yourself.
Disney says in the lawsuit that the FCC pressure has already influenced what airs on “The View.”
The show has become “more circumspect in booking political candidates,” with no candidate appearing since early February, the suit notes.
ABC also says it’s “chosen not to air clips” of candidates it otherwise would have used because those clips could be cited against them in the FCC review.
>> Disney has filed for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, so this legal showdown will move relatively quickly.
>> “ABC’s lawsuit against the FCC has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan, a Joe Biden appointee,” Scott Nover tweeted.
>> The FCC’s lone Democrat, Anna Gomez, said, “I’m glad Disney has shown courage and stepped up. This should be a welcome sign for every broadcaster who has felt the weight of this overreaching government pressure in silence.”
>> FIRE’s Nico Perrino wrote, “At long last! A broadcast network has found a backbone and is suing to stop the administration’s bullying and censorship.”
>> Right-leaning FCC critics also spoke out. Cato Institute fellow David Inserra: “Today’s lawsuit by ABC Disney against the FCC directly challenges the broad and abusive powers that Congress and prior court decisions gave the FCC.”
Opening arguments begin today “in what could be Meta’s most consequential legal fight yet over youth safety and addiction,” CNN’s Clare Duffy writes. “If Meta loses the case, it could fundamentally change how the company’s social media platforms operate.”
The case was brought by 29 state attorneys general, and lawyers for four of those states will be in federal court in Oakland, charging violations of both state consumer protection statutes and the federal Child Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). They’ll allege that Meta’s apps have dangerous design features and that Mark Zuckerberg and other execs made many misrepresentations about those features. Meta has denied the allegations.
I asked legal scholar Clay Calvert, a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, about what might happen at trial:
– Does Meta have strong defenses?
I think Meta will vigorously contest factual specifics about how exactly the alleged 50 or so misrepresentations were deceptive and how they caused any harm to users of the platforms. Additionally, Meta likely will question the AGs’ expert or experts on how they arrived at the massive $1.4 trillion damage figure they are seeking. In short, the details and facts will matter here, with the judge ultimately being the factfinder and a jury serving only in an advisory capacity.
– That’s intriguing about the jury. So the judge will have the final say, and does it seem likely that Meta will be forced to change its products in meaningful ways?
It’s hard to predict what she’ll determine here. If she finds Meta liable, she could order both monetary damages and actual design changes. Sometimes monetary liability is enough by itself to incentivize a company to make design changes. The judge in the New Mexico AG case ordered both monetary liability and some design modifications.
– State AGs have been in the news a whole lot lately. The Ticketmaster trial and the Paramount suit come to mind. Is this Meta trial another example of state officials filling a perceived void left by federal officials?
Rather than being comparable to an antitrust or merger case, I think the state AGs see the case against Meta as a chance to hop on the potential money train of (and public animus against) “Big Tech.” This strikes me as much more like opioid and tobacco litigation. That may sound cynical, but casting blame on a single company for harms that are probably caused by many variables and many factors seems like an easy strategy in the court of public opinion. Whether it works in a court of law remains to be seen.
Kids are off limits. Decent people generally agree on that. But yesterday the White House attacked CNN’s Kristen Holmes and claimed her children will someday be “sickened and embarrassed to have a parent be so callous and vindictive.”
All because… Holmes was doing her job, asking Trump newsworthy questions.
The ugly rhetoric came from the White House’s “rapid response” account on X. The writer didn’t even sign his or her own name.
It was an apparent attempt to defend Trump’s “human printer” Natalie Harp. But it simply drew more attention to the speculation about Harp’s working relationship with Trump. “Who is Natalie Harp?” is the most-read story on CNN’s website right now.
Furthermore, doesn’t an attack against a family undermine the GOP’s family-values messaging?
CNN responded to the White House’s appalling conduct with a pitch-perfect statement: “Public officials are free to challenge reporting they disagree with, but personal attacks on journalists for asking questions are beneath the office and inconsistent with the principles of a free press. We stand firmly behind Kristen and reject these attacks in the strongest possible terms.”
…And since YouTube is the world’s biggest video platform, this impacts everyone. It’ll now count a view the second a video starts — similar to the way TikTok and Reels count theirs. This means “YouTube videos are going to become more popular — without becoming more popular,” BI’s Peter Kafka wrote yesterday. Here’s his explanation…
And the states immediately scoffed at the idea. Yesterday, the company asked Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguín to require the 12 state AGs and the Writers Guild of America to post a $1.9 billion bond. Paramount says that would cover some of the losses it expects to incur — including roughly $7 million per day in ”ticking fees” under the merger agreement — if it ultimately prevails in court next year.
Appearing on CNN’s “The Brief” with Jim Sciutto last night, California AG Rob Bonta dismissed the bond request as “desperation” and noted that Martinez-Olguín waived the bond requirement at an earlier point in this case. “We expect her to reject it again here because there’s no basis for it,” he said.
So what’s the new Paramount motion about? Some legal experts say it sets up a potential fast-track appeal of the case. It may also be another way to pressure the states to come to the settlement table. I wrote more about it here…
Ariel Levy, a staff writer for The New Yorker who focuses on culture, gender and sexuality, is the latest addition to Bari Weiss’ refurbished “60 Minutes.” In a memo to staffers, Nick Bilton announced Levy will join as a contributor, again tapping someone with little TV experience to learn the newsmagazine’s signature storytelling style. I shared Bilton’s full memo on X.
The new “60” team, including Levy, “has been convened under pressure,” Variety’s Brian Steinberg wrote, reminding readers that “the 59th season of ‘60 Minutes’ is slated to debut September 13.”
Check out Jake Tapper’s report on “The Lead” yesterday: “A high school newspaper in Marin County, California took on the Epstein files and found itself in the middle of a fight over free speech.”
Tapper interviewed Ben Mueller and Madison Bishop, who were pressured by school administrators to take a post down, but knew their rights and ultimately prevailed. Mueller said the struggle “honestly made me want to be a journalist more.” Watch the segment on CNN.com…
>> Trump’s BBC lawsuit has been reassigned to Judge Jeffrey Kuntz, a recently confirmed Trump appointee, Josh Gerstein notes. (X)
>> CNN “recently struck a new deal with Abby Phillip,” the aforementioned Brian Steinberg reports. (Variety)
>> Netflix has hired recently laid-off ESPN reporter Tom Pelissero to be its NFL insider and sideline reporter for the 2026 season. (NYT)
>> And Netflix has poached WBD’s Katie Martin Kelley as VP of film communications. (Variety)
>> Perez Hilton‘s website has resumed operations “as the blogger remains hospitalized following a livestreamed self-harm incident earlier this month,” Alex Welch reports. (TheWrap)
“Amazon is buying massive quantities of books, scanning them for AI training data, and destroying them in the process,” 404 Media’s Emanuel Maiberg reports.
To investigate the matter, Maiberg placed “a tracking device in a rare book we suspected would be acquired by an AI company for training data,” and followed the book to its ultimate destination. “That final destination was an Amazon warehouse in Las Vegas, Nevada.” Read the rest here; it’s quite a tale…
Circling back to ABC and its free speech fight: Rosie O’Donnell made her first guest host appearance last night as she subs in for Jimmy Kimmel this week.
While O’Donnell, who as LateNighter’s Bill Carter points out, is “perhaps the most vilified target in the firmament of hated Trump targets,” did “not quite” provide the “explosive television” some anticipated, “she was clearly making a point” by not performing “an in-your-face, nonstop confrontational, Trump-mocking guest host out of the Kimmel mode.” Carter has more on her guest-host debut here…
This edition of Reliable Sources was edited by Andrew Kirell and produced with Liam Reilly. Email us your feedback and tips here.