# ABC and Disney v. FCC Filed **18 August 2026** in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by **ABC**, parent company **Disney**, and eight ABC affiliate licensees against the **[[FCC]]**, alleging that the agency's proceedings against ABC's broadcast licenses are unconstitutional retaliation for the network's editorial content. The complaint opens with the line that became its headline: > [!quote] "Government censorship is deeply un-American." ## The claim The plaintiffs allege that the administration **"has waged a retaliatory campaign against ABC for a single reason: it disapproves of what ABC broadcasts."** They contend FCC Chairman **[[Brendan Carr]]** initiated an early license-renewal proceeding to punish programming and editorial decisions the administration disliked — including [[Jimmy Kimmel]]'s on-air commentary about the First Lady — and that Trump has repeatedly called publicly for ABC to lose its licenses. They seek an **injunction** barring the FCC from continuing the early-renewal proceeding or otherwise using its regulatory authority to control the editorial decisions of ABC stations. ## Why it matters for the KB **1. The licensing power is the pressure point, and that is the structural story.** Broadcast licensees are uniquely exposed: newspapers and streaming services are not licensed, but broadcast stations hold revocable federal authorizations. **An agency does not need to win a license proceeding to impose costs** — the proceeding itself is the sanction, and its existence is what makes editorial caution rational. That is the same route-around-the-rule pattern the vault documents at [[Preclearance]] and the [[Bank Secrecy Act]]: the formal power is rarely exercised to conclusion, and the credible threat does the work. **2. It is a rare case of the target litigating rather than settling.** The vault's [[Media Hub]] material documents a run of media companies settling with the administration rather than fighting. Disney choosing to sue a regulator with continuing authority over its licenses is the deviation from that pattern, and the outcome is a real test of whether the settlement wave reflected legal weakness or risk aversion. **3. Affiliates are co-plaintiffs, which broadens it.** Eight affiliate licensees joining means the case is not only about a network's national programming but about local stations' exposure — the pressure point most likely to produce preemptive self-censorship at the level readers never see. > [!warning] Live litigation > Filed 18 August 2026. **No ruling is recorded on this page.** Check the docket before describing any outcome. ## See Also - [[FCC]] · [[Brendan Carr]] · [[ABC News]] · [[Jimmy Kimmel]] - [[First Amendment]] · [[Media Hub]] - [[Preclearance]] · [[Bank Secrecy Act]] — the machinery-over-rule pattern