Jimmy kimmel should have strong odds at the Supreme Court(politico.com)
politico.com
Jimmy kimmel should have strong odds at the Supreme Court
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/09/18/jimmy-kimmel-supreme-court-first-amendment-lawsuit-00570697
81 comments
> 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.
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.
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.”
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.
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!!!"
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!!!"
[deleted]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
"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...
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.
See: Republicans Kill Attempt to Subpoena FCC Chair After Jimmy Kimmel Suspension https://talkingpointsmemo.com/where-things-stand/republicans...
and other sources.
> 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.)
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.)
Yes, you can sue government officials for violating your well established constitutional rights.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983
Oh, I really like this!
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.
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.
Emails from ABC, Nexstar, and the FCC may shed some light on things. See also: Dominion and Fox.
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.
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.
Berenson v. Biden was dismissed.
_DeadFred_(1)
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.
Hard to know if that's true, of course.
Haha not only is Disney submitting to the bullying they are now making up a story to protect the bully.
>Since that was written, Disney evidently published the back story that, days earlier, they were looking to fire Kimmel themselves
source?
source?
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/18/entertainment/abc-jimmy-kimme...
is one article discussing such. gets more vague the further in.
is one article discussing such. gets more vague the further in.
Turns out corporate merger > constitution
Riiiiiiiiight, I totally believe that.
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.
See perhaps:
> Anna Gomez, the FCC’s lone Democratic commissioner, tells TNR that chairman Brendan Carr’s move violates both the First Amendment and the Communications Act. Democrats must extract consequences.
* https://newrepublic.com/article/200649/trump-ouster-kimmel-a...
> Anna Gomez, the FCC’s lone Democratic commissioner, tells TNR that chairman Brendan Carr’s move violates both the First Amendment and the Communications Act. Democrats must extract consequences.
* https://newrepublic.com/article/200649/trump-ouster-kimmel-a...
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
Quite seriously
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.
He has a right to speak his mind, not to have a show.
The FCC does not have the legal right to threaten him for what he said
That seems correct to me as well, but is it really?
I think they're making an argument related to misinformation / lying about a crime, which apparently is against the terms of ABC's broadcast license. I'm evidently not a lawyer.
I think they're making an argument related to misinformation / lying about a crime, which apparently is against the terms of ABC's broadcast license. I'm evidently not a lawyer.
They threatened local affiliates' licenses if they didn't pull the show, which isn't making a formal complaint against ABC for misinformation. I'm obviously not a lawyer but nothing about the FCC making informal threats to coerce self censorship seems remotely legal, beyond the fact Kimmel obviously didn't lie about anything
> 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.)
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.)
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.
Did you even read the piece?
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.
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.
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.
If only; he is not.
Huq is a U Chicago professor of con law and understands what is happening [1]. He is just having a really bad lawyer brain moment as the eroading rule of law crosses the line he probably uses in class as an example of "too far."
1: https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/aziz-huq-writes-about-libe...
Huq is a U Chicago professor of con law and understands what is happening [1]. He is just having a really bad lawyer brain moment as the eroading rule of law crosses the line he probably uses in class as an example of "too far."
1: https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/aziz-huq-writes-about-libe...
If we can award $5M to the family of a January 6th insurrectionist, then we sure as hell can award money to Kimmel for unconstitutional threats made by Brendan Carr. Right?
What about all of these unconstitutional threats?
http://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/weaponizatio...
http://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/weaponizatio...
What threats were made? Linking a 98 page PDF argues nothing. Especially when the chairman of the committee that produced it is Jim Jordan, a MAGA sycophant.
I’m confused. It would be the broadcaster that was harmed right? Jimmy Kimmel wouldn’t have standing?
The Supreme Court can’t order a private company to give Jimmy Kimmel back his job?
The Supreme Court can’t order a private company to give Jimmy Kimmel back his job?
>The constitution doesn’t guarantee Kimmel a talk show, but it does guarantee that the government won’t quash his speech because of what he chooses to say. Kimmel now has a straightforward suit for damages and forward-looking relief that he can and should file — not just against ABC, but also against the government officials who were the driving force for his embarrassing public disciplining.
The threat made by the government to censor him is a tool that has been there since 1992. A tool made by George H Bush and used often by every administration since. Oddly enough, nobody ever challenges it and I see 0% chance Kimmel has any chance of winning. Absolutely no way Kimmel has any odds of winning in court.
I consider as well, lets say he does win and this rule is thusly struck down. It's going to be a nightmare situation for everyone in the usa after.
The threat made by the government to censor him is a tool that has been there since 1992. A tool made by George H Bush and used often by every administration since. Oddly enough, nobody ever challenges it and I see 0% chance Kimmel has any chance of winning. Absolutely no way Kimmel has any odds of winning in court.
I consider as well, lets say he does win and this rule is thusly struck down. It's going to be a nightmare situation for everyone in the usa after.
> used often by every administration since.
When else has the FCC chair threatened to take a license away for someone saying something they don't like? Source?
When else has the FCC chair threatened to take a license away for someone saying something they don't like? Source?
Except that Roberts et al are basically on Trump's side. "The umpire who picked a side: John Roberts and the death of rule of law in America":
* https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2025/aug/...
"The Rule of Law Is Dead in the US":
* https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/the-rule-of-law-i...
* https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2025/aug/...
"The Rule of Law Is Dead in the US":
* https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/the-rule-of-law-i...
Yes, but Roberts really doesn't want to be worse than the Taney court. Throwing out freedom of speech with the first amendment would probably put him down there.
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.
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.
How does any other media personality know that it's "kayfabe"?
The chilling effect is not "kayfabe".
The chilling effect is not "kayfabe".
> He gets to go down looking like he’s fighting instead of unentertaining.
Even better: he uses the opportunity to make it clear that any kind of comment that is out of line with the administration will not be tolerated.
He didn't go down fighting. He went out demonstrating the consequence of not agreeing.
Even better: he uses the opportunity to make it clear that any kind of comment that is out of line with the administration will not be tolerated.
He didn't go down fighting. He went out demonstrating the consequence of not agreeing.
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.
Plus of you're going out in a blaze, it's something more substantive than what he said.
It’s amazing to me that every time something like this happens some people paint it as some grand conspiracy and 4D chess move involving a large set of people. It’s like 4chan leaking all over the Internet.
Kayfabe is when the events are scripted by people who are working together even as they play enemies in the show and where everybody involved knows it is fake and plays along anyway.
Do you believe that Trump and Kimmel are actually coordinating this behind the scenes? Do you believe that the large majority of both of their audiences understand this to be a show rather than reality?
Do you believe that Trump and Kimmel are actually coordinating this behind the scenes? Do you believe that the large majority of both of their audiences understand this to be a show rather than reality?
[deleted]
Assuming Kimmel wins a lawsuit, if that lawsuit is against government officials, couldn't Trump immediately pardon those officials, overriding the courts?
No, lawsuits are civil and pardons are criminal.
RickJWagner(1)
mrangle(1)
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.