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 · 1h ago
> 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.
tptacek · 1h ago
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.
hirsin · 1h ago
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.
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 · 20m ago
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 · 1h ago
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.
JumpCrisscross · 1h ago
> 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 · 1h ago
Yes, you can sue government officials for violating your well established constitutional rights.
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 · 1h ago
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 · 45m ago
Emails from ABC, Nexstar, and the FCC may shed some light on things. See also: Dominion and Fox.
tptacek · 9m ago
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 · 42m ago
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).
The author seems to underestimate this Supreme Court’s willingness to make nakedly partisan rulings.
Edit: oh here we go. Partisan first amendment issues were perfectly fine to discuss here when it was about Twitter. But, different ox being gored now, so we’re going to flag this into oblivion. Absolute frauds.
nick__m · 1h ago
I would not blame dang for keeping that flagged. The quality of the one on Gaza was appalling, it must have been really hard to moderate one and this one wasn't going to be much better.
Skullfurious · 1h ago
The States have become a third world shithole what other lows can you reasonably expect from them?
starchild3001 · 1h ago
I've seen this happen before. President ordering people to be sued, and even jailed. There's a name for this kind of system and it isn't congressional democracy.
jjtheblunt · 1h ago
Since that was written, Disney evidently published the back story that, days earlier, they were looking to fire Kimmel themselves (before any FCC threat), because he alienated the viewer base repeatedly, costing advertisers.
Hard to know if that's true, of course.
cosmicgadget · 51m ago
Haha not only is Disney submitting to the bullying they are now making up a story to protect the bully.
yongjik · 37m ago
Riiiiiiiiight, I totally believe that.
lawlessone · 1h ago
>Since that was written, Disney evidently published the back story that, days earlier, they were looking to fire Kimmel themselves
is one article discussing such. gets more vague the further in.
bmitch3020 · 16m ago
Assuming Kimmel wins a lawsuit, if that lawsuit is against government officials, couldn't Trump immediately pardon those officials, overriding the courts?
eth0up · 1h ago
I could say a lot of mean things about Jimmy. But what good would it do? I can't stand him. But I will stand up for his right to say whatever he says. If this country, this side or that side, on a razor's edge or done gone cosmic can't see what looms in this direction, just take a chance and oppose it while you can. You don't want to live the alternative.
Quite seriously
FredPret · 1h ago
He has a right to say whatever he says, but surely his private employer have a right to fire him for it?
He has a right to speak his mind, not to have a show.
JumpCrisscross · 1h ago
> surely his private employer have a right to fire him for it?
Short answer: depends on his contract.
Longer answer: if ABC fired him because of illegal threats from Carr, one could construct the argument that ABC and Carr conspired illegally to subvert Kimmel’s First Amendment rights. (Whether this is legal nonsense is beyond me.)
FredPret · 1h ago
That would be wrong, but I think the conservative backlash was such that he'd have been very much fired anyway, FCC or no. People were publishing lists of his advertisers on X to organize a boycott.
cosmicgadget · 53m ago
Murder of someone with late stage cancer is still murder.
FredPret · 39m ago
Good point
bandyaboot · 1h ago
Did you even read the piece?
macinjosh · 1h ago
Kayfabe all around.
Late night has been dying for a decade. Disney gets cover to end the show.
Kimmel knows it’s over. He gets to go down looking like he’s fighting instead of unentertaining.
Trump gets to claim he took down Kimmel, red meat for his base.
News and Social Media gets something to boost their numbers.
cosmicgadget · 55m ago
On the other hand, this fits a very consistent pattern with the administration and businesses or personalities that it deems critical.
Plus of you're going out in a blaze, it's something more substantive than what he said.
avidiax · 50m ago
How does any other media personality know that it's "kayfabe"?
The chilling effect is not "kayfabe".
RickJWagner · 46m ago
Don’t forget, Kimmel has a history of racist and sexist comedy, including blackface skits.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983
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.
See: Republicans Kill Attempt to Subpoena FCC Chair After Jimmy Kimmel Suspension https://talkingpointsmemo.com/where-things-stand/republicans...
and other sources.
Edit: oh here we go. Partisan first amendment issues were perfectly fine to discuss here when it was about Twitter. But, different ox being gored now, so we’re going to flag this into oblivion. Absolute frauds.
Hard to know if that's true, of course.
source?
is one article discussing such. gets more vague the further in.
Quite seriously
He has a right to speak his mind, not to have a show.
Short answer: depends on his contract.
Longer answer: if ABC fired him because of illegal threats from Carr, one could construct the argument that ABC and Carr conspired illegally to subvert Kimmel’s First Amendment rights. (Whether this is legal nonsense is beyond me.)
Late night has been dying for a decade. Disney gets cover to end the show.
Kimmel knows it’s over. He gets to go down looking like he’s fighting instead of unentertaining.
Trump gets to claim he took down Kimmel, red meat for his base.
News and Social Media gets something to boost their numbers.
Plus of you're going out in a blaze, it's something more substantive than what he said.
The chilling effect is not "kayfabe".
Good riddance. Who wants to defend a racist?