Disney vs. FCC: Court Hearing on ABC Licenses Explained
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., will hear arguments Tuesday morning, Oct. 6, 2026, in a First Amendment lawsuit by Walt Disney Co. and ABC against the Federal Communications Commission. NPR
Disney and ABC are asking U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan to block the FCC from moving up its normal review of licenses for ABC-owned stations. AliKhan has ordered the agency to pause until after the hearing while she weighs jurisdiction — the legal authority to hear the case — and whether to grant short-term relief.
The FCC has asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit. In a filing in early September, the agency said challenges to license decisions belong in a federal appeals court, not a district court. That filing set Oct. 6 as the date for the district court to take up the dispute. Reuters
At issue is the FCC plan to review all eight stations Disney owns as part of ABC, years earlier than usual. Six of the eight are in large markets and provide a large share of the network's revenue, so the proceeding has financial effects as well as regulatory effects.
The review followed months of social media posts in which President Donald Trump urged the FCC to strip ABC of its station licenses. Trump has repeatedly said ABC should fire late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, a call the first lady also made earlier this year, and he has often described ABC's The View as liberal and unfair.
There is earlier history. Before returning to office, Trump sued ABC over incorrect statements by anchor George Stephanopoulos about the outcomes in the two lawsuits filed against Trump by E. Jean Carroll. ABC paid $16 million in December 2024, including legal fees, to settle that suit a month before Trump returned to the White House.
FCC Chair Brendan Carr was elevated to the chairmanship by Trump. Under Carr, the agency cited the requirement that stations serve the public interest and opened investigations into Disney's diversity, equity and inclusion policies. In an August interview with NPR, Carr said the agency had not decided whether to pull ABC's licenses and had taken no action against the licenses, only sped up the review.
Disney and ABC said the actions violate the First Amendment, which protects speech and press freedom, and described the investigation and early review as a "retaliatory campaign." CNBC ABC said the agency retaliated for Kimmel's satire and news coverage. The companies seek a court declaration of their rights and an order blocking the FCC from moving forward with a proceeding to revoke licenses.
Disney CEO Josh D'Amaro authorized the court fight against the administration, placing the company in direct litigation with its broadcast regulator.
The broader context here is procedural as much as constitutional. The threshold question is whether a district judge can stop an early renewal or revocation case, or whether Disney must wait for a final agency order and then seek review in the court of appeals. That venue ruling will control the timetable, the record on which retaliation is judged, and the standard the court applies to agency discretion over the public-interest determination.
Looking at what this means for station owners and regulators, the merits question turns on motive and action. Disney must connect specific programming, Kimmel segments and news coverage, to specific agency steps to meet the test for retaliation, while the FCC points to its public-interest authority and to Carr's statement that no revocation decision has been made. An early review alone does not revoke authority, but for eight owned stations with national network implications, acceleration alone creates legal costs and business uncertainty that both sides will ask AliKhan to weigh.
