ABC sued the Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday, accusing the agency of violating the First Amendment in its efforts to possibly strip the network’s local broadcasting licenses.
The company asked a federal court to stop the F.C.C. from pursuing the regulatory moves, which the network said posed an “existential threat” to its operations.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington, was a rare example of a major media organization’s suing the Trump administration over its unrelenting campaign to punish the national press through lawsuits, reporting restrictions and, in the case of the major networks, the regulatory power of the federal government.
ABC, which is owned by the Walt Disney Company, has already argued in agency filings that the F.C.C. was motivated by a hostility to the network’s coverage and content. Its lawsuit includes various quotes from President Trump calling for the revocation of broadcast licenses for coverage he has not liked.
“This case boils down to a simple question: Can the administration use its control over the federal regulatory apparatus to punish a media organization for editorial decisions and news coverage it dislikes?” the lawsuit said. “Because the First Amendment provides a clear answer — of course not — this court’s intervention is necessary to stop the Federal Communications Commission’s extraordinary assault on free speech.”
In an interview late Tuesday, the F.C.C. chairman, Brendan Carr, called the lawsuit “meritless” and denied that the agency was violating ABC’s free speech rights.
“Holding a broadcaster accountable to their public interest obligations and statutory obligations is not a violation of their First Amendment rights,” he said, “and that is what the F.C.C. is doing.”
ABC owns and operates eight local stations across the country, including in major markets like New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. Like all local stations, they can operate only with licenses controlled by the F.C.C.
The F.C.C. called for an unusual, early review of the broadcast licenses in April, citing an ongoing investigation into ABC’s diversity and inclusion practices. None of the ABC licenses, which have terms of eight years, were up for renewal yet; most of them do not expire until 2030 or 2031. Mr. Carr acted after ABC’s late-night host, Jimmy Kimmel, angered Mr. Trump with a monologue joke.
For the government to take away stations’ rights to broadcast, it would have to make a convincing case that the stations showed a pattern of violating rules and regulations. Legal and regulatory experts have said ABC would have a strong argument to make in court that the stations had done no such thing.
Under F.C.C. rules, Mr. Carr has the power to run the network through several painful steps. He could, for example, call for a hearing where he or other F.C.C. commissioners could grill network executives about their operations and their editorial decision-making.
ABC said in its legal complaint that such a hearing would be a “charade” and “performative.” The network said the F.C.C. could also slow-walk such a hearing, or delay any ruling from it, leaving ABC in limbo while its editorial decisions remain under intense scrutiny and litigation costs skyrocket. (In the interview on Tuesday, Mr. Carr said the agency had made no determination “one way or another” on how to proceed.)
The suit also highlighted what the network called onerous and inappropriate demands. ABC said it had supplied the F.C.C. with over 13,000 pages of documents in response to some 600 requests. ABC said the agency had requested communications between producers and hosts on “The View,” a network talk show, as well as an itemized list of political donations from some employees, including in its news division.
“The process is itself the punishment,” the network said.
In a statement released earlier on Tuesday, the F.C.C. said ABC was merely seeking to derail the agency’s investigation into its diversity and inclusion policies.
“Disney is obviously very concerned about the F.C.C.’s proceeding, as evidenced by their ongoing campaign of disinformation as well as their decision to ask a court to stop the F.C.C. from further pursuing matters,” the agency said. “The F.C.C. will continue to follow the facts and law wherever they lead.”
On Tuesday afternoon, the federal judge assigned to the case, Loren L. AliKhan, gave ABC and the F.C.C. two days to propose a briefing schedule. Judge AliKhan said the court would have to be notified if the F.C.C. took steps to initiate a hearing process.
Mr. Carr’s agency is also weighing whether “The View” still qualifies for an exemption from a rule that requires TV shows that interview political candidates to offer the candidate’s opponent an equal amount of airtime. News programs do not face that restriction. The F.C.C. granted “The View” the same exemption in 2002.
ABC said the agency’s action had already had an adverse effect on the show. With the midterm elections nearing, the network said, the show has been “more circumspect in booking political candidates, and has resulted in passing on further consideration of booking several political candidates.” And it said producers had decided against airing certain video clips of some candidates, which the network described as “a concrete First Amendment injury.”
Since taking the agency chairmanship, Mr. Carr has made a point of reviving century-old regulations that were devised when radio and television were the primary means of mass communications — before cable and the internet introduced seemingly infinite news and entertainment choices.
He has said he is merely holding ABC and its broadcast competitors to the letter of the law, which, he contends, went without enforcement for too long.
The ABC suit is unusual because ordinarily, the network would first exhaust the F.C.C.’s standard adjudication process, which could take months, if not years. It could then challenge any final agency determination in appellate court.
Daniel Suhr, the president of the Center for American Rights, a conservative group that has supported the F.C.C.’s actions against ABC, said the timing of the suit was problematic because the F.C.C. hadn’t made its own ruling yet.
“How is a court supposed to rule on a commission action when the commission hasn’t even acted yet?” he said.
But some free speech advocates who oppose the F.C.C.’s inquiry into ABC said in interviews that the lawsuit was making an effective case that the agency was using the process to punish the network, requiring court intervention now.
“This kind of pressure is always something the courts could take into account,” said Robert Corn-Revere, the chief counsel for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
Anna M. Gomez, the lone Democratic F.C.C. commissioner, applauded Disney for showing “courage.”
“This should be a welcome sign for every broadcaster who has felt the weight of this overreaching government pressure in silence,” she said.
