IN THIS ISSUE

FEDERAL FUNDING & OVERSIGHT

FCC Orders Early License Review for ABC Stations

• FCC orders early license renewal for ABC stations following Kimmel's first lady joke 

OVERVIEW

On April 28, 2026, the Federal Communications Commission directed The Walt Disney Company to file early broadcast license renewal applications for the eight ABC-owned television stations it operates, with a 30-day deadline. The licenses are not otherwise scheduled for renewal until 2028 at the earliest, with some extending to 2031.

The FCC stated it is investigating ABC stations for “possible violations of the Communications Act of 1934 and the FCC’s rules, including the agency’s prohibition on unlawful discrimination.” An FCC official confirmed that the order is connected to an ongoing investigation into Disney’s DEI practices that has been open since March 2025.

The action follows public criticism from both Trump and Melania, who called for Jimmy Kimmel to be fired after remarks he made about the First Lady on his April 23 broadcast. The FCC’s order does not reference Kimmel’s comments.

FCC Chair Brendan Carr publicly criticized Disney’s DEI practices and said evidence from the investigation could raise “character” questions about the company under FCC licensing standards. Disney stated that it has always complied with FCC rules and is confident it meets the qualifications to remain a license holder.

FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez called the order “the most egregious action this FCC has taken in violation of the First Amendment to date,” adding that the White House “called publicly for the silencing of a vocal critic, and this FCC has now answered that call.”

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The FCC’s action is grounded in its authority under the Communications Act of 1934, which requires broadcast licensees to operate in the “public interest, convenience, and necessity.” As part of that standard, the agency evaluates the “character qualifications” of license holders, a framework historically applied in cases involving legal or regulatory misconduct.

The FCC also enforces Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) requirements applicable to broadcasters, which prohibit employment discrimination and require documented outreach and compliance practices. The order cites potential violations of these rules, consistent with the agency’s ongoing investigation into Disney’s employment practices that began in March 2025.

While the FCC has discretion in administering license renewals, the acceleration of the renewal timeline departs from the standard review schedule. Any subsequent action affecting a license would need to be supported by findings of statutory or regulatory noncompliance and follow established administrative procedures, including notice and opportunity to respond.

The action also implicates constitutional considerations. Broadcast licensees are subject to greater regulatory oversight due to their use of public spectrum, but agency decisions remain subject to First Amendment constraints and judicial review. Any final determination by the FCC could be challenged through the agency’s administrative process and in federal court.

BRIDGE POV
While the FCC has stated this action is tied to an ongoing investigation into ABC’s DEI practices and potential violations of the Communications Act, critics are questioning the timing.

Moving an investigation into the licensing process immediately after public pressure tied to a specific comment raises questions about how authority is being applied and whether that application is connected to speech.

Experts and former officials have described the early license review as “unprecedented,” “unlawful,” and “political,” raising concerns about the use of regulatory power in ways that could pressure media organizations.

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Understand Where Regulatory Authority Applies: If your business operates under federal licensing or oversight, be clear on where and how that authority can be exercised. This is not theoretical. Know the mechanisms.
   
   

2. Ensure Employment Practices Are Legally Sound: The FCC’s action is tied to alleged employment-related violations. Review DEI and talent practices to ensure they are structured and documented in line with existing law.
   
   

3. Prepare for Scrutiny Across Functions: Employment practices, public content, and regulatory exposure are increasingly intersecting. Make sure leadership understands how these areas connect and where risk may emerge.

See also: FCC Investigates Corporate DEI Programs (Issue 7); FCC Expands EEO Audits to Include DEI Program Scrutiny (Issue 26)

CIVIL RIGHTS

DOJ Challenges Colorado AI Anti-Discrimination Law

• Trump’s anti-DEI movement comes for AI 

OVERVIEW

On April 26, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a legal challenge against Colorado’s Artificial Intelligence Act, a first-of-its-kind state law regulating the use of AI systems in employment, housing, lending, and other high-stakes decisions. The law, enacted in 2024 and scheduled to take effect in 2026, requires companies deploying AI systems to assess and mitigate algorithmic discrimination and imposes disclosure and documentation obligations on developers and deployers.

The DOJ argues that the Colorado law conflicts with federal law by effectively requiring companies to consider race and other protected characteristics in order to evaluate disparate impact, which it claims may violate federal anti-discrimination standards. The challenge reflects a broader federal position opposing state-level regulations that incorporate DEI-related frameworks into AI governance.

Colorado officials have defended the law, stating that it is designed to prevent discrimination and ensure accountability in automated decision-making systems. The case sets up a direct conflict between federal enforcement priorities and emerging state regulation of AI and workplace practices.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The DOJ’s challenge includes constitutional arguments under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, asserting that Colorado’s law may require consideration of race or other protected characteristics in ways that conflict with federal standards. The law’s requirements to assess and mitigate algorithmic bias, including disparate impact on protected groups, are central to that claim.

The case highlights a legal tension between state efforts to regulate algorithmic decision-making through impact-based analysis and federal anti-discrimination frameworks that restrict the use of protected-class characteristics in employment decisions. It also raises questions about how established civil rights doctrines apply to AI systems, particularly where potential bias may result from training data rather than explicit decision rules.

Federal law, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, continues to govern employment practices. The disparate impact framework established in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. remains part of that statutory structure, addressing policies that are neutral on their face but produce discriminatory effects.

The litigation will address how these existing legal standards apply to state-level regulation of AI systems used in employment and other high-impact decision-making contexts.

BRIDGE POV

This is not really about AI. It’s about how discrimination is defined and enforced.

Colorado’s law is built on the idea that systems should be tested for outcomes. The DOJ’s challenge focuses on whether doing that requires the use of protected characteristics in ways federal law restricts. That tension has existed for years. AI is just forcing it into the open.

What changes here is the level of precision required. When decisions are made by systems, not people, it becomes harder to separate intent from outcome. And that is where the legal frameworks are colliding.

The same tool can be compliant under one interpretation and questioned under another. Federal law, state regulation, and how agencies choose to enforce both are not fully aligned.

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Audit AI Systems Against Existing Law: Review how AI tools are used in hiring, promotion, and other decisions. Focus on outcomes, inputs, and documentation. Ensure alignment with Title VII and existing anti-discrimination standards.

2. Separate Analysis from Decision-Making: Be clear about where and how protected-class data is used. Distinguish between evaluating systems for bias and making employment decisions. Document that separation.

3. Track Jurisdictional Differences: State and federal approaches to AI and discrimination are not aligned. Monitor where you operate and adjust practices to meet the applicable legal standard in each jurisdiction.

See also: Trump Issued an Executive Order on Disparate Impact Liability (Issue 10); Trump Issues Executive Order on the Use of DEI in AI (Issue 23); AI Bias Is Becoming the Next Civil Rights Battleground as Democrats and States Move to Fill the Federal Void (Issue 43)