The chain ABC and its parent company Disney took their legal battle against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to a federal court in Washington on Tuesday, where they sought a preliminary injunction to halt the expedited review of the broadcasting licenses for eight of its stations.
The attorney for ABC, Beth Wilkinson, argued that this is an unconstitutional retaliation driven by the Trump administration, during a hearing held before U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Columbia, Loren AliKhan.
So far, the judge has not issued an immediate ruling and has requested additional briefs from both parties: from the government before October 9 and from ABC before October 14. A decision is not expected before mid-month.
Wilkinson resorted to a historical image to describe the effect that the process is already having on the chain: having the "head on the guillotine," forced to wonder "if anything we say will cause it to fall."
"Our editorial decisions are being affected right now. We are monitoring everything we do," he stated before the judge, emphasizing that the midterm elections are approaching.
Wilkinson was more direct in attributing the political motivation behind the measure: "President Donald Trump has made his stance clear time and again. What he is saying is that, because of that content, because of that speech, ABC should lose its license. These are blatant violations of the U.S. Constitution."
In their lawsuit, the chain's lawyers argue that "the First Amendment demands the immediate end of the Commission's retaliation campaign."
The origin of the dispute dates back to late April, when the president of the FCC, Brendan Carr —an ally of Trump—, ordered eight ABC stations to submit license renewal applications years ahead of schedule, as these do not expire until between 2028 and 2031.
The order came a day after Trump publicly demanded the dismissal of host Jimmy Kimmel following a satirical comment about Melania Trump.
Carr denied having acted under political pressure and attributed the review to a nearly year-long investigation into Disney's diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, as well as potential violations of the Communications Act of 1934.
The affected stations are WABC-TV (New York), KABC-TV (Los Angeles), WLS-TV (Chicago), WPVI-TV (Philadelphia), KTRK-TV (Houston), KGO-TV (San Francisco), WTVD-TV (Raleigh-Durham), and KFSN-TV (Fresno).
ABC submitted the eight renewal applications in May "under protest," labeling the action as "arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional." The formal lawsuit was filed in August with the same court.
The government outright rejected ABC's arguments. The Justice Department attorney, Dimitar Georgiev-Remmel, raised two main objections: that the district court lacks jurisdiction—because challenges to FCC orders must be brought before a federal appeals court—and that ABC has not demonstrated irreparable harm, since the eight licenses remain valid.
Granting the precautionary measure, he argued, would be equivalent to "allowing them to evade" the regulatory process that Congress established for this type of resource.
In response, Wilkinson specified what he believes to be the real harm: "The irreparable harm is the chilling effect and the threat of retaliation by the First Amendment speech and the editorial decisions that ABC makes every day."
The case is set against a backdrop of conflicts between the Trump administration and media outlets. In September, the White House banned access to CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, who filed a lawsuit against the government days later.
Trump also proposed in December 2025 that networks with "almost 100% negative" coverage of him should lose their broadcasting licenses.
The attorneys from the Department of Justice warned in their court filing that preventing the FCC from "using all the tools at its disposal to investigate whether the plaintiffs are meeting their legal and regulatory obligations would cause serious harm to both the government and the public."
Related videos:
Filed under: