Key Points
- Frequency Forward, the Media Action Center and several ABC station viewers filed a motion to intervene as plaintiffs in Disney and ABC’s lawsuit against the FCC.
- The groups say they want to ensure ABC viewers’ First Amendment rights are represented in the case.
- The proposed intervenors support Disney’s challenge but argue the company’s corporate interests may not always align with the interests of viewers.
Frequency Forward, the Media Action Center and viewers of local ABC-owned television stations are seeking to join the Walt Disney Company and ABC’s lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), arguing that viewers have a First Amendment interest in the case that should be represented in court.
The groups filed a motion to intervene Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where Disney and ABC are challenging the FCC’s early license renewal proceedings involving ABC-owned television stations. The proposed intervenors are seeking to join the case as plaintiffs, according to court documents obtained by The Desk.
The lawsuit, filed August 18, accuses the agency and its Chairman Brendan Carr of retaliating against Disney and ABC over programming and editorial decisions disfavored by the Trump administration. Disney and ABC are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the agency.
The proposed intervenors said they support Disney’s lawsuit but want to ensure viewers are represented separately from the company. In their motion, the groups argue that ABC viewers have a constitutionally protected right to receive news, information and programming free from government intimidation.
“The public airwaves belong to ‘We the People,’ not to Disney, the ABC stations that it owns, or its shareholders,” Sue Wilson, the Founder of the Media Action Center, said in a statement. “We have already taken steps through the FCC’s process to block backroom deals should Disney’s corporate interest and the public interest diverge.”
Wilson said joining the lawsuit would give viewers “a voice in the process” and help ensure their First Amendment rights “cannot be negotiated away behind closed doors.”
The motion argues that Disney and ABC cannot necessarily be relied on to represent viewer interests because their corporate interests could diverge from the public interest, particularly if the company were to negotiate a settlement with the FCC. The proposed intervenors say such a settlement could potentially affect ABC programming or reporting.
“Every day, the stations face a choice between exercising independent editorial judgment at the risk of losing their licenses or capitulating to the Trump Administration,” attorney Art Belendiuk said on Monday. “That pressure is already affecting newsroom and programming decisions, and is why we are fighting to intervene on behalf of viewers to protect their First Amendment right to the uncensored and fair programming and reporting they have enjoyed for years.”
In their legal memorandum, the groups cite Disney’s own complaint, which says the “ultimate injury” from the FCC’s actions is not to the stations or their parent company, but to the public. The proposed intervenors argue that the FCC’s actions have chilled ABC’s editorial judgment and could continue to do so as long as the agency’s license proceedings remain unresolved.
The groups argue their motion is timely because it was filed about one week after Disney and ABC filed suit. They are asking the court to grant intervention as of right or, alternatively, permissive intervention under federal civil procedure rules.
In public statements, Carr said the FCC’s pending action over ABC’s broadcast licenses was sparked not by its programming choices but by Disney’s purported use of diversity, equity and inclusiveness (DEI) practices in its hiring and promotional decisions. Disney asserts it cooperated with a probe launched by the FCC earlier this year on that matter, but the agency charged Disney with providing incomplete answers to questions about its DEI programs and of engaging in a misinformation campaign to persuade public opinion.
Carr has criticized ABC’s programming in the past: Last summer, he urged local ABC affiliates to pre-empt “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” over a monologue; the network ultimately placed the show on a one-week hiatus after two large ABC affiliate groups pulled the show from their stations.
He also questioned whether the daytime talk show “The View” should qualify for a blanket exemption to the agency’s equal time rules for political candidates; the show has long enjoyed protections as a news program, though it doesn’t produce its own news stories.
Carr has shown a similar level of scrutiny toward Comcast-owned NBC and, to some degree, Paramount-owned CBS, but has largely left Fox Corporation’s TV network and local stations alone. He previously criticized the FCC’s decision to hear public comment on a possible revocation of a TV license associated with a Fox-owned station. That petition was ultimately tossed by his predecessor.
