The DOJ is against holding an emergency hearing regarding the FCC's examination of ABC's licenses.

      Disney has requested a federal judge to conduct an emergency hearing by Tuesday concerning the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) review of the licenses for its eight ABC-owned stations. The Justice Department informed the court on Thursday that there is no urgency in this matter.

      The government’s stance is mainly procedural and relatively understated. According to the department, a hearing designation order would merely “initiate a further administrative process that would allow Disney and ABC to present their case,” indicating that nothing irreversible will occur on Tuesday.

      Disney interprets the process differently. In its lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court in Washington and assigned to Judge Loren AliKhan, Disney characterizes the FCC’s behavior as an "extraordinary assault on free speech" and an effort to "coerce and retaliate" against the network.

      The company is seeking a temporary restraining order, which is why the timing is critical for it, unlike for the government. Obtaining a restraining order after the administrative process has begun is significantly more challenging than securing one beforehand.

      The implications are significant for a company currently undergoing a transformation. Disney is restructuring its operations around a Disney+ super app under new leadership, a plan that relies on maintaining a stable regulatory environment with Washington.

      This conflict did not emerge spontaneously. Last month, President Donald Trump called for the ABC stations to lose their licenses after the network opted not to air a prime-time speech, and he has devoted much of the past two years urging the commission on this issue.

      Broadcast licenses serve as the leverage point since they are the only aspect of a contemporary media company that the federal government still licenses directly. Cable channels, streaming services, and studios do not require such licenses; however, the eight stations owned outright by Disney do.

      This gives the FCC leverage over a relatively small and less profitable segment of the Disney empire, which is simultaneously the part that delivers the network’s news division into households. The commission does not need to revoke any licenses for its influence to be effective.

      The mechanism being contested is the hearing designation order, which is seldom used against a major broadcaster. It moves a license into a contested process before an administrative law judge, where the responsibility lies with the licensee to demonstrate that it should retain its license.

      The Justice Department correctly notes that the process would provide Disney with a platform. However, it is equally accurate that the process itself constitutes a sanction, as a network battling to retain its licenses has a vested interest in being cautious about its broadcasts.

      This is the argument Disney is putting forward, which is why it seeks court involvement before the proceeding starts rather than afterward. The First Amendment assertion is not focused on the FCC actually taking the licenses, but rather on the impact of the potential threat to revoke them.

      Judge AliKhan has yet to make a ruling regarding the timing request. The government’s filing does not address the validity of Disney’s free speech argument, which is typical at this stage but will eventually need to be addressed.

      The broader American media industry is observing a separate conflict about whether state attorneys general can obstruct the Paramount and Warner Bros merger, which hinges on a different issue but raises the same fundamental question: how much authority the government has over ownership of the nation’s media platforms.

      The eight stations are located in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Houston, Raleigh, and Fresno, collectively covering a significant portion of the American populace. Disney’s additional ABC presence comes through affiliates it does not own, which cannot be subjected to the same review process.

      Affiliates have their licenses and independent risk assessments, illustrated by the recent Jimmy Kimmel episode: several affiliate groups chose not to air the program after it returned, without any regulatory mandate.

      The FCC has not made any comments regarding the litigation. Disney’s stations continue to operate and remain licensed as the case unfolds.