Just noodling on this:

He has better-than-typical odds of clearing the standing hurdle. He was directly harmed, right.

But he's going to have some pretty high evidentiary hurdles, right? Discovery may well turn up that Nextar pulled his shows preemptively, both because of political affiliation and because of an upcoming merger. They didn't need to be "jawboned", and there's not much indication that they were even contacted by the FCC.

When the largest affiliate network in the country pulls your show, it's harder to make the case that ABC itself was responding directly to the FCC, which is what Kimmel will need to establish.

These are positive and not normative arguments and my confidence level is extremely low.

▲

xnx 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> there's not much indication that they were even contacted by the FCC

Brendan Carr: "This is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney. We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead."

Nice merger you have planned there, sure would be a shame if something were to happen to it.

	▲	ryandvm 35 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I don't like agreeing with the Cato institute, but the reality is that the FCC has long enjoyed excessive power to override the 1st amendment. https://www.cato.org/blog/jimmy-kimmel-fcc-why-broadcasters-... Fortunately MAGA doctrine requires overt and performative bullying, so these dinguses don't use the usual bureaucratic tricks and instead tweet "wE aRe cANcelLinG yOU!!!"
	▲	xtiansimon 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Exactly! From the article: “This principle is both simple and sound: The government can’t do indirectly, through shadowy threats and mafia-like intimidation, what it is barred from doing directly.”
	▲	tptacek 18 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I agree there's lots of smoke, but he'll have to prove fire in court. The distinction this article is drawing is that he'll likely be able to see the inside of a courthouse if he pushes, because it's a case with such clear standing.
	▲	13 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

hirsin 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There's at least the appearance of causation here, with the FCC Chairman publicly saying that broadcasters could get their licenses yanked if they didn't drop Kimmel, and later that suddenly occurring.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/18/entertainment/abc-jimmy-kimme...

I imagine a smoking gun will be demanded by this SCOTUS though, and this kind of stochastic "would be nice if someone..." pressure/threat will get a pass.

	▲	cosmicgadget 17 hours ago \| parent [-]
		As I understand it, a jury will determine whether this was a coincidence or mafia-style doublespeak and the courts will typically respect their finding of fact.

▲

benmmurphy 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The supreme court punted with Murthy vs Missouri (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf) but it would be harder for them to use the standing excuse in this case. Also, Alito and Gorsuch were dissenting in this case so presumably you would hope that if a similar case appeared they would be consistent and side with the plaintiffs. I think for those in favour of a free speech ruling there is real hope for a positive outcome.

	▲	_DeadFred_ 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Supreme Court case 22-842 last year, National Riffle Association of America, Petitioner v. Maria T. Vullo "Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors." This gives the legal grounds that he KNEW what he was doing is a violation of law/the Constitution. It is not a grey area and the Trump admin would not be unaware of a case that the NRA WON last year. https://bsky.app/profile/barbarasobel.bsky.social/post/3lz4u...

▲

JumpCrisscross 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> he's going to have some pretty high evidentiary hurdles

Hmm, with ABC or the government? (Can individuals claim damages in court against the government for First Amendment violations?)

If it were found Carr was acting unconstitutionally, and thus clearly outside the colour of law, could he be found personally liable?

(Side note: thank you, this is what I was hoping for when I posted this here.)

▲

hackingonempty 18 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, you can sue government officials for violating your well established constitutional rights.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983

▲

JumpCrisscross 18 hours ago | parent [-]

Oh, I really like this!

▲

hackingonempty 18 hours ago | parent [-]

IANAL but I'm pretty sure there's massive amounts of litigation around this statute and the law is a lot more complex than it looks on its face.

	▲	JumpCrisscross 18 hours ago \| parent [-]
		There may honestly be a public interest in distracting as many of this administration’s officials as legally possible, at least until midterms can roll around.

▲

cosmicgadget 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Emails from ABC, Nexstar, and the FCC may shed some light on things. See also: Dominion and Fox.

	▲	tptacek 17 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Right. My guess, though, is that those emails don't exist --- not because the intent wasn't there on the administration's part (without getting too deep into my politics: "lol") but because the FCC wouldn't need to have. There's also just a large affiliate station ownership that is conservative, and a large number of affiliates in markets that are themselves very conservative, and Kimmel did say something really dumb that probably did piss a lot of people off in a diffuse, organic way. Again: I hope he sues, I hope he gets to the inside of a courtroom, and obviously I hope he wins. But speaking descriptively, rather than just what I want to see happening: he has bigger problems than standing ahead of him.

▲

defrost 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

FWiW Carr won't even (yet, at least) be bought to testify before the Oversight Committee despite his comments that were clearly in breach (regardless of whether they had influence in the decision to suspend).

See: Republicans Kill Attempt to Subpoena FCC Chair After Jimmy Kimmel Suspension https://talkingpointsmemo.com/where-things-stand/republicans...

and other sources.

▲

mieses 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Berenson v. Biden was dismissed.

▲

_DeadFred_ 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

	▲	tptacek 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, you got me, I'm a secret Republican.