Jimmy Kimmel Should Have Strong Odds at the Supreme Court
Posted4 months agoActive3 months ago
politico.comOtherstoryHigh profile
heatedmixed
Debate
85/100
First AmendmentSupreme CourtFree Speech
Key topics
First Amendment
Supreme Court
Free Speech
The article discusses Jimmy Kimmel's potential lawsuit against the government for allegedly pressuring Disney to cancel his show, sparking debate on free speech and the role of government in private companies' decisions.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
14m
Peak period
37
0-3h
Avg / period
6.9
Comment distribution55 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 55 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Sep 18, 2025 at 7:17 PM EDT
4 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Sep 18, 2025 at 7:31 PM EDT
14m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
37 comments in 0-3h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Sep 20, 2025 at 3:44 PM EDT
3 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45296182Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 2:27:16 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
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.)
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.
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.
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
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.
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.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!!!"
"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...
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.
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.
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.
The chilling effect is not "kayfabe".
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?
Plus of you're going out in a blaze, it's something more substantive than what he said.
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.
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...
* 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...
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.
When else has the FCC chair threatened to take a license away for someone saying something they don't like? Source?
http://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/weaponizatio...
The Supreme Court can’t order a private company to give Jimmy Kimmel back his job?
> 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...
9 more comments available on Hacker News