ABC’s decision to suspend Jimmy Kimmel Live! has sparked questions about whether the late-night host could pursue legal action, particularly against President Donald Trump and federal regulators.
In criticizing how some Republicans reacted to Charlie Kirk’s death, Jimmy Kimmel alleged that conservatives were using Kirk’s assassination for political advantage rather than mourning the conservative activist sincerely. Trump said Kimmel had said “a horrible thing” about Kirk and praised ABC’s decision to pull Jimmy Kimmel Live! off the air.
Why It Matters
The dispute cuts to the heart of how far government officials can pressure media outlets without violating the First Amendment. If regulators can threaten broadcasters’ licenses to influence programming decisions, critics warn it could chill not only comedians but also journalists, academics and other public voices from speaking freely.
The outcome could set an important precedent for media independence and democratic norms in an era of escalating political polarization.
What Did Jimmy Kimmel Say About Charlie Kirk?
On September 15, during his opening monologue, Kimmel addressed the fallout from Kirk’s killing, saying, “Many in MAGA land are working very hard to capitalize on the murder of Charlie Kirk.”
He added, “The MAGA gang [is] desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”
On September 18, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr publicly warned that broadcasters airing content like Kimmel’s could face regulatory review, a statement critics argued was intended to pressure networks into compliance.
Hours later, ABC announced that it was indefinitely suspending Jimmy Kimmel Live!—which premiered on the network on January 26, 2003.
In an interview with podcaster Benny Johnson, Carr said: “We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”
“They have a license granted by us at the FCC, and that comes with it an obligation to operate in the public interest,” he continued.
Carr called Kimmel’s remarks “some of the sickest conduct possible,” adding that it could constitute “news distortion.”
After the show was taken off the air, Carr said, “We’re not done yet with seeing the consequences of that.”
Anna Gomez, the sole Democratic commissioner at the FCC, told CNN while commenting on Carr’s remarks, “This administration is increasingly using the weight of government power to suppress lawful expression.”
The Trump administration has long clashed with late-night hosts and media outlets the president views as hostile, and allies have defended the FCC’s involvement—describing it as oversight rather than censorship.
The Core Legal Question
For Kimmel to succeed in a First Amendment lawsuit, he would need to show that his suspension was not simply a corporate decision made by ABC or Nexstar but the result of coercive government action.
Courts generally hold that free speech protections apply to state action, not private companies acting independently. If ABC pulled the program in response to FCC threats, such as license revocation, Kimmel could claim a constitutional injury.
The challenge lies in proving that government pressure, rather than business or reputational concerns, caused the decision.
Precedent and the Chilling Effect
Legal scholars point to recent Supreme Court precedent underscoring that government officials cannot pressure private actors to suppress speech.
In NRA v. Vullo, the court held in its 2023 ruling that officials could not coerce third parties into penalizing disfavored viewpoints.
Eugene Volokh, a professor emeritus at UCLA Law, told Newsweek: “If ABC was pressured into suspending the Kimmel program by threat of FCC retaliation, then that would likely violate the First Amendment. The key precedent on this is NRA v. Vullo, where the Supreme Court made clear that ‘government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors.'”
Volokh added: “I can’t speak with confidence about whether ABC acted because of government pressure or just based on its own disapproval of Kimmel’s comments … or perhaps a business judgment about the public’s disapproval.”
Experts on Coercion and Free Speech
Other constitutional experts emphasized the gravity of government involvement in media decisions. RonNell Andersen Jones, a professor at the University of Utah, told Newsweek: “The Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors. Given the complex mix of corporate and governmental decisions that were made here, it’s unclear whether any parties will bring this First Amendment claim. But we do see the government openly acknowledging that it encouraged the development, which is extraordinary.”
The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University issued a sharper critique. Jameel Jaffer, its executive director, told Newsweek: “The Trump administration is becoming increasingly brazen in its abuse of government power to silence its critics—in part because too many of the powerful institutions that could stand up to this thuggery are capitulating instead. Collectively, we need to do more to assert and defend the freedoms that are essential to our democracy, including the freedom to criticize the powerful.”
Obstacles to Litigation
Even with supportive precedent, legal hurdles remain significant.
If a suit is brought, courts may require clear evidence that FCC threats directly influenced ABC’s choice. Internal communications between regulators and broadcasters would be critical in discovery.
Remedies may also be limited: While Kimmel could seek an injunction to prevent retaliation or compel ABC to restore his program, securing damages is less likely.
Another complication lies in broadcast regulation itself.
While FCC license revocations are rare, Nexstar’s pending merger, which would exceed the statutory cap on national market reach, may have heightened sensitivity to regulatory pressure.
This intersection of corporate interests and political speech complicates the case beyond a straightforward censorship claim.
What People Are Saying
President Donald Trump said aboard Air Force One when asked whether Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr should go after other talk show hosts: “They give me only bad publicity or press. I mean, they’re getting a license. I would think maybe their license should be taken away.”
Trump said in his inaugural address in Washington, D.C., on January 20: “After years and years of illegal and unconstitutional federal efforts to restrict free expression, I also will sign an executive order to immediately stop all government censorship and bring back free speech to America.”
Then-Republican vice presidential candidate JD Vance said at a rally in Wausau, Wisconsin, on October 26, 2024, while commenting on the backlash against a conservative comedian’s joke about Puerto Rico: “I think that it’s telling that Kamala Harris’ closing message is, essentially, that all of Donald Trump’s voters are Nazis and you should get really pissed off about a comedian telling a joke. That is not the message of a winning campaign, and most importantly, it’s not the message of a person who’s fit to be the president of the United States of America. … I think that we have to stop getting so offended at every little thing in the United States of America.”
What Happens Next
A lot depends on whether Kimmel pursues legal action. He could file a First Amendment lawsuit arguing that FCC threats unlawfully pressured ABC to suspend his show or challenge the agency through administrative law, but success would hinge on evidence showing government coercion rather than corporate discretion.
Even without a lawsuit, the controversy is fueling debate over media independence, with advocacy groups calling out potential overreach and the FCC’s pending review of Nexstar’s merger heightening industry sensitivity to regulatory pressure.
Read the full article here
