Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch used a landmark ruling on presidential firing powers to single out FCC Chairman Brendan Carr's campaign of regulatory pressure against ABC and late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, a pointed warning, from a conservative justice, about the risks of weaponizing federal agencies against speech.
The rebuke landed inside a 6-3 decision handed down Monday that ruled President Trump can fire Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter, a case that could dramatically expand the president's authority over independent regulatory agencies. But it was Gorsuch's reference to the FCC's conduct toward a television network that drew immediate attention.
In his written opinion, as reported by The Hill, Gorsuch quoted Carr's own words back at him and flagged the FCC as one of the agencies whose behavior makes the scope of presidential power over regulators a live constitutional concern.
The justice's opinion cited Carr's prior public statements directly. Gorsuch wrote:
"Last year, taking objection to a network host's on-air remarks, the Chairman of the FCC suggested there would be 'additional work... ahead' for the agency if broadcasting companies did not 'find ways to... take action.'"
That passage names no individual host. But the context is unmistakable. Carr has been openly critical of Jimmy Kimmel and other late-night hosts who routinely mock the president and his allies. And the FCC chairman has not been shy about using the levers of his office to apply pressure.
Carr has repeatedly insisted the FCC has a duty to scrutinize whether major broadcasters using public airwaves are putting forth content that serves the "public interest." That standard, vague by design, has given the agency wide latitude. Under Carr's leadership, it has been aimed squarely at Disney-owned ABC.
The Gorsuch opinion did not arrive in a vacuum. The FCC under Carr has opened multiple fronts against Disney and its ABC subsidiary.
Carr called for a number of local stations owned and operated by Disney to undergo early license renewal, a rare and aggressive regulatory step. The agency is separately investigating Disney over its corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. And the FCC is seeking public comment on whether ABC's daytime program "The View" qualifies as a bona fide news show, a classification that carries regulatory consequences.
Each action, taken alone, might look like routine oversight. Taken together, and placed alongside Carr's public statements about late-night hosts who criticize the president, the pattern looks different. That is precisely the pattern Gorsuch chose to highlight from the bench.
The host at the center of the controversy is Jimmy Kimmel, who was briefly suspended by ABC last year after accusing conservatives of trying to score "political" points over the death of activist Charlie Kirk. Kimmel later apologized for those comments and was ultimately reinstated by the network.
The timeline matters. Carr's public warning about "additional work... ahead" came amid a period of intense regulatory scrutiny of ABC, scrutiny that coincided with the network's decision to pull its own host off the air, however briefly. Whether ABC acted under direct government pressure or preemptively is an open question. But the sequence speaks for itself.
The broader issue Gorsuch raised is not whether Kimmel's remarks were tasteful or fair. It is whether a federal regulator should be leveraging licensing authority to influence what a broadcaster says on air. That question cuts across partisan lines, or it should.
Gorsuch is no liberal activist. He was appointed by President Trump and has been one of the Court's most reliable originalists. His willingness to call out Carr's conduct is significant precisely because it comes from inside the conservative legal movement, not from its critics.
This is not the first time Gorsuch has staked out ground that put him at odds with the administration that elevated him. Trump publicly rebuked Gorsuch and Justice Barrett earlier this term over a tariff ruling that went against the White House. The president made clear he expected loyalty from his appointees. Gorsuch, evidently, does not see it that way.
That independence is worth defending, even when it is inconvenient. Conservatives who cheered judicial independence when progressive administrations tried to bully the courts cannot abandon the principle when the pressure runs in the other direction.
Gorsuch has spoken publicly about threats against judges and the importance of judicial independence, themes that run directly through this week's opinion. A justice who takes those principles seriously will apply them to all branches and all administrations, not just the ones his critics prefer.
The 6-3 decision in case No. 25-332 addressed whether the president can fire members of independent agencies like the FTC. The Court said yes, Trump can remove Rebecca Slaughter, and in doing so opened the door to a major expansion of executive authority over regulators that have long operated with a degree of insulation from the White House.
That ruling has sweeping implications. Independent agencies, the FCC, the FTC, the SEC, and others, were designed to operate at arm's length from the president. The Court's decision weakens that buffer. Whether that is good or bad depends on your view of executive power and your trust in whoever holds it.
Gorsuch's opinion suggests he understands the danger on both sides. More presidential control means more accountability when regulators go rogue. But it also means fewer guardrails when an agency chairman decides to use licensing power to punish speech he dislikes.
The FCC's conduct toward ABC and Kimmel is a case study in exactly that risk. A regulator who can threaten a broadcaster's license over on-air content is a regulator who can chill speech, not through censorship, but through the credible threat of bureaucratic retaliation.
The tension between political loyalty and institutional independence is not unique to the judiciary. Senator John Fetterman has faced similar pressure from his own party for breaking ranks on key issues, a reminder that both sides punish dissent when it becomes inconvenient.
But the stakes are higher when the dissenter sits on the Supreme Court and the institution in question holds the power to regulate what Americans see and hear on public airwaves. Carr may believe he is enforcing a legitimate public-interest standard. Gorsuch clearly believes something else is going on.
Several questions remain unanswered. Was Gorsuch's reference to the FCC part of a majority opinion, a concurrence, or a dissent? The full structure of the opinion has not been clarified in available reporting. The current status of the FCC's investigation into Disney's DEI policies, the early license renewal reviews, and the inquiry into "The View" all remain open. So does the question of whether Carr's public statements about late-night hosts were connected to the specific remarks that led to Kimmel's suspension, or to separate on-air comments.
What is clear is that a sitting Supreme Court justice, a Trump appointee, a committed originalist, looked at the FCC chairman's conduct and found it troubling enough to put on the record in a major constitutional opinion. That is not a casual aside. It is a marker laid down for the future.
Conservatives have spent decades arguing that government should not use its regulatory power to pick winners and losers in the marketplace of ideas. That principle does not come with an asterisk for late-night comedians whose jokes land on the wrong side of the aisle.
Carr's "public interest" standard may sound neutral. But when the chairman openly criticizes specific hosts by name and then launches a battery of regulatory actions against their network, the neutrality evaporates. The government is not supposed to punish broadcasters for content it dislikes. That was true when the Obama administration leaned on media companies, and it is true now.
Gorsuch understood that. His opinion did not defend Kimmel's comedy or endorse ABC's editorial choices. It did something more important: it reminded the other branches that the First Amendment applies even when the speech is annoying, partisan, or aimed at the president.
If conservatives want the government out of the business of policing speech, they have to mean it, especially when the speech being policed is speech they do not like.