Trump admin fights ABC lawsuit as watchdogs worry Disney will settle with FCC

The Commission’s Chairman has repeatedly emphasized that, although the allegations against Disney are serious, he and the agency remain “open-minded,” have “not made a decision,” and are “going to follow the facts and the law wherever they [lead].” And the renewal process in progress does not abridge or otherwise affect Plaintiffs’ rights. Licensees with pending renewal applications are entitled to continue operating without interruption during the license period for the duration of the renewal proceeding—even were it to result in a hearing. In fact, even if the Commission were to deny the stations’ applications, their licenses would remain in effect for however long they might wish to seek judicial review. The FCC alleged that Disney’s responses to the commission’s investigative inquiries “were deficient and nonresponsive,” necessitating the order for an early license review. The agency also said the district court lacks jurisdiction because FCC orders are reviewed by circuit appeals courts. “Granting Plaintiffs’ request would mean taking administrative processes off the table before the Commission has seen and analyzed the voluminous evidence,” the FCC said. “This would only hobble the Commission’s efforts to investigate and resolve serious allegations that Disney has engaged in unlawful discrimination, and from otherwise ensuring that Disney’s stations are serving the public interest. Plaintiffs, in return, would only free themselves from the burdens of proving their case in administrative proceedings.” In exchange for licenses to use spectrum, “Congress has required broadcasters to operate in the public interest,” the FCC said. “To foreclose the Commission from using all the tools at its disposal to investigate whether Plaintiffs are meeting their statutory and regulatory duties would seriously harm both the government and the public.” Disney opposed the motion in a filing yesterday, saying the “proposed intervenors lack a legally protected interest because the harm they invoke is harm to Plaintiffs, not to themselves. And the broader injury they claim on behalf of the viewing public is a generalized grievance shared by all viewers, which cannot support intervention.” Disney said that it, ABC, and the ABC-owned stations “have every incentive to protect their own right to be free of unlawful retaliation” and will “vigorously contest Defendants’ unlawful, speech-suppressing conduct.” Disney said the groups and individuals can instead file an amicus brief to make their views known to the court “at the appropriate stage in the litigation.” Art Belendiuk, a lawyer for the groups seeking to intervene, said in a statement provided to Ars that they will continue making their case to the court. “The FCC’s pressure campaign against Disney has already forced the company to compromise its reporting and programming, as it outlined in its lawsuit, harming countless viewers across the United States. While Disney can argue that our interests are aligned, that may not always be true,” Belendiuk said. “Disney has a legal and fiduciary obligation to its shareholders, and its corporate interest is in preserving its licenses. My clients are fighting in the public interest to protect and preserve the integrity of the First Amendment. The American people deserve a seat at the table, and we are confident that the judge will agree.” Disney acknowledged in its lawsuit that it changed coverage because of the FCC’s actions. With The View facing a separate FCC proceeding related to the equal-time rule, “ABC must now evaluate any invitation to a political candidate for its potential consequences, including whether it might later be cited by the Commission as a basis for non-renewal in the Stations’ impending license renewal proceedings,” the lawsuit said. The View hasn’t aired any interviews of political candidates since the FCC began the proceeding that could revoke the show’s bona fide news exemption to the equal-time rule.