What Is New With Trump Censorship in September 2026? Latest court filings and agency records and Key Takeaways

September 2026 brought the first full courtroom test of the FCC's pressure campaign against ABC, with the agency moving to dismiss the network's First Amendment lawsuit on September 4 and ABC filing its opposition on September 17. The month also produced a concrete example of self-censorship — Jimmy Kimmel pulling a Senate candidate interview off broadcast television — and a hearing date the week of October 5 that will decide whether the case proceeds. These filings land against a documented pattern: a Reuters tally counts 75 separate cases in which federal judges have ruled the Trump administration infringed First Amendment rights. This article walks through what was filed in September, what each side is arguing, and what the October hearing will decide.

The FCC moves to dismiss the ABC lawsuit
ABC's answer and the "broadcaster death penalty"
The Kimmel interview shows the chill in practice
The wider docket feeding into September
What to watch and what it means for readers
Frequently Asked Questions

The FCC moves to dismiss the ABC lawsuit

On September 4, 2026, the FCC asked U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan to throw out the First Amendment lawsuit that ABC and Disney filed over the agency's early license-renewal review of eight Disney-owned TV stations, according to Deadline's report on the dismissal motion. The agency's core argument is timing: because the FCC has not actually moved to strip any license, it says the suit is premature. That argument matters because it sidesteps the retaliation question entirely.

If the court agrees the case is not ripe, it never has to decide whether the early-renewal review was punishment for ABC's news coverage. Broadcasters would then have to wait until a license is actually threatened — after the review process has already shaped their editorial decisions. The underlying suit, filed August 18 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the FCC and Chair Brendan Carr, cites Trump's Truth Social posts demanding ABC lose its licenses as evidence that the early-renewal order and demands for DEI records are retaliation for news coverage, per NBC News' account of the complaint.

ABC's answer and the "broadcaster death penalty"

ABC filed its opposition on the September 17 deadline. The network told the court that the FCC's early renewal process hangs "the broadcaster death penalty of license non-renewal or revocation over Plaintiffs' every editorial decision," and that the agency's motion fails to refute "substantial evidence" of a retaliatory motive, as reported by TheWrap's coverage of the opposition filing. The legal theory is that the injury is happening now, not at some future revocation.

A review that can end a station's existence chills editorial choices the moment it opens — no final agency action required. That framing directly answers the FCC's ripeness argument. Judge AliKhan has set a hearing for the week of October 5, with October 6 scheduled. That hearing is the next date to watch: a denial of the motion sends the case toward discovery into the FCC's motives, while a dismissal likely postpones any judicial review until the agency takes formal action against a license.

The Kimmel interview shows the chill in practice

ABC's chilling-effect argument got a real-world illustration mid-month. On September 10, Jimmy Kimmel announced that his interview with Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico would run only on YouTube, not on ABC's broadcast. Kimmel said the FCC "has threatened me, threatened our show, threatened our network" over guest bookings, and that he was shielding Texas affiliates from regulatory exposure, according to NBC News' report on the pulled interview.

FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, the agency's sole Democrat, said the spiked interview "shows just how far this Administration's campaign of censorship and control has gone" and said she hopes courts will rule the FCC has no place dictating editorial choices. Her dissent means the criticism is coming from inside the agency, not only from the plaintiffs. For the pending case, the episode is significant because it is exactly the injury ABC describes in its brief: editorial content altered while the review hangs overhead, before any license action occurs.

The wider docket feeding into September

The ABC case sits inside a much larger record. Reuters tallied 75 separate cases in which federal judges ruled the administration infringed First Amendment rights — spanning visa revocations over pro-Palestinian advocacy, grant terminations, and retaliation against law firms — context that courts are now citing in the September filings, per the Reuters tally.

The most recent major ruling in that line came August 28, when U.S. District Judge Noël Wise in the Northern District of California held, in a 90-page decision in a suit brought by The Stanford Daily, that revoking foreign students' visas over pro-Palestinian speech violated the First and Fifth Amendments, writing that "freedom of speech belongs to the people… not the government's to take." Two press-freedom suits filed in August remain pending into September:.

Three Stars and Stripes staffers — the military paper's publisher, editor-in-chief, and Middle East reporter — sued the Defense Department on August 28, alleging their firings were retaliation meant to erode the paper's editorial independence.
The Intercept and the Freedom of the Press Foundation sued Trump and his White House social media team on August 12, claiming that selling paid premium access to his Truth Social announcements while restricting journalists' access violates the First and Fifth Amendments.

What to watch and what it means for readers

The single most important upcoming date is the hearing before Judge AliKhan the week of October 5. Watch for whether she rules from the bench or takes the motion under advisement, and whether the ripeness argument or the retaliation evidence dominates the questioning. For readers tracking government accountability, the practical takeaways: A dismissal on ripeness grounds would not end the dispute; it would defer it to whenever the FCC acts on one of the eight station licenses, with the retaliation evidence preserved for that day.

The ABC case docket is in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; the dismissal motion, the September 17 opposition, and any reply brief are public filings.
The 75-case pattern means individual rulings increasingly cite one another, so a loss for the government in one venue (like the Stanford Daily ruling) becomes ammunition in the next.
Self-censorship — the Kimmel interview moving to YouTube — is the kind of harm that never shows up in an agency record, which is precisely why ABC argues the court cannot wait for a formal license action.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the FCC's main argument for dismissal?

That the suit is premature because the agency has not actually moved to strip any of the eight Disney-owned stations' licenses.

When will the court hear the motion?

Judge Loren AliKhan set a hearing for the week of October 5, 2026, with October 6 scheduled.

Why did the Kimmel interview air only on YouTube?

Kimmel said the FCC had threatened his show and network over guest bookings, and he kept the Talarico interview off broadcast to shield Texas affiliates.

Owed money from a settlement? Check what is open at OpenClassActions.com. Caring for someone with dementia? Find practical guides at HelpDementia.com. Working out a skin routine? Evidence-based answers at AcneAdvocate.com. Forgot the name of a movie? Identify it at FindThisMovie.com. Was your data exposed? Track active breaches at DataBreachRadar.com.