Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch used a landmark ruling on presidential authority to spotlight something unusual: a federal regulator's public campaign against a late-night television host. In an opinion issued this week as part of a 6-3 decision expanding the president's power to fire heads of independent agencies, Gorsuch cited FCC Chairman Brendan Carr's efforts to pressure ABC and its parent company Disney over content aired by Jimmy Kimmel.
The reference landed in the middle of a case about the Federal Trade Commission, not the FCC, making it a pointed aside. Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, was not siding with Kimmel. He was raising a harder question: what happens when a president gains broader control over agencies that regulate speech?
The core ruling, handed down Monday in docket No. 25-332, held that President Trump can fire FTC member Rebecca Slaughter. The 6-3 decision was described as paving the way for a major expansion of the president's firing power over independent agencies. But Gorsuch's written opinion ranged beyond the FTC, naming the FCC as one of the agencies that could be affected, and then getting specific.
Gorsuch quoted Carr's own words back to him. From the opinion:
"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 is not ambiguous. It identifies Carr by title, identifies the trigger as a host's on-air speech, and characterizes the FCC chairman's public statements as a veiled threat, act on your talent, or face regulatory consequences.
For a Supreme Court justice to single out a sitting agency head's conduct toward a specific broadcaster inside a formal opinion is rare. It suggests Gorsuch views the FCC's posture toward ABC as a live example of the very risk the Court was weighing: concentrated executive power over agencies that touch the First Amendment.
The backstory is well documented. Carr has been openly critical of Kimmel and other late-night hosts who mock the president and his allies. He has repeatedly insisted the FCC has a duty to scrutinize whether major broadcasters who use public airwaves are putting forth content that serves the "public interest."
That scrutiny has not stayed rhetorical. Under Carr's leadership, the FCC called for an early license renewal review of local stations owned and operated by Disney, ABC's parent company. The agency is also separately investigating Disney over its corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. And the FCC has sought public comment on whether the daytime talk program "The View" qualifies as a bona fide news show.
Each of those actions, taken alone, falls within the FCC's statutory authority. Taken together, and in the context of Carr's public statements about broadcasters who displease the administration, they form a pattern that even a conservative justice found worth flagging.
Gorsuch's concerns about executive overreach have surfaced in other high-profile rulings this term. He has shown a willingness to rule against the administration when he believes constitutional limits are at stake, a trait that has earned him both praise and friction within conservative circles.
The specific incident that triggered Carr's public comments involved Kimmel accusing conservatives of trying to score "political" points over the death of activist Charlie Kirk. Kimmel later apologized. ABC briefly suspended him, then reinstated him.
The suspension itself raised free speech concerns among some observers. But it was Carr's response, publicly suggesting the FCC had "additional work ahead" if networks did not discipline their hosts, that crossed a line in Gorsuch's view. The justice's opinion frames the episode not as a debate over Kimmel's taste or judgment, but as a case study in how regulatory leverage can be used to chill speech.
Conservatives who cheered Carr's pressure on Kimmel may find Gorsuch's warning inconvenient. But the justice's logic is consistent with a principle most conservatives claim to hold: the government should not use its regulatory power to punish disfavored speech. That principle does not change depending on whether the speech in question comes from a late-night comedian or a talk radio host.
The 6-3 decision itself is significant beyond the FCC question. By ruling that Trump can fire FTC member Rebecca Slaughter, the Court expanded the president's authority over independent agencies that have historically operated with a degree of insulation from the White House. The decision affects not just the FTC but potentially dozens of agencies, including the FCC, the SEC, and others whose leaders have traditionally enjoyed for-cause removal protections.
The current Supreme Court term has produced a string of consequential rulings touching presidential power, regulatory authority, and constitutional structure. This one may prove among the most far-reaching.
For the administration, the ruling is a clear win. It gives the president direct leverage over agency heads who resist his policy agenda. For supporters of executive accountability, that is a long-overdue correction to a bureaucratic structure that has allowed unelected regulators to operate as a fourth branch of government.
But Gorsuch's opinion makes clear that expanded presidential power comes with expanded risk. If the president can fire agency heads at will, those agency heads have every incentive to please the president, including by using their regulatory tools against the president's critics. That is the dynamic Gorsuch identified in Carr's conduct toward ABC.
The tension here is real, and conservatives should not paper over it. Carr's frustration with network television's leftward tilt is shared by millions of viewers who feel broadcast media treats conservative viewpoints with contempt. The FCC's "public interest" standard exists for a reason, and there is nothing wrong with enforcing it.
But enforcement motivated by a host's political commentary is a different matter. When a regulator publicly warns that "additional work" awaits networks that do not discipline their on-air talent, the message to every broadcaster in America is clear: cross the administration and face consequences. That is not content regulation. It is political pressure wearing a regulatory badge.
Gorsuch's own relationships within the conservative legal movement have grown more complicated in recent years, as his falling out with longtime ally Mike Davis illustrates. His willingness to break with the administration on constitutional questions has drawn criticism from some on the right. But his record on free speech and structural limits on government power is consistent, and in this case, his warning deserves a serious hearing.
The rising tensions surrounding the Supreme Court make it tempting to dismiss any justice's opinion as partisan maneuvering. That temptation should be resisted. Gorsuch is not defending Kimmel's comedy. He is defending the principle that federal regulators should not wield licensing power as a weapon against speech the administration dislikes.
Several threads remain unresolved. The FCC's investigation into Disney's DEI policies is ongoing. The status of the early license renewal review for Disney-owned ABC stations is unclear. The public comment period on whether "The View" qualifies as a bona fide news show has not concluded. And Carr has not publicly responded to Gorsuch's citation of his comments in the opinion.
The three dissenting justices in the 6-3 ruling have not been identified in available reporting, nor has their reasoning been detailed. Those dissents may shed additional light on the boundaries the Court is drawing, or declining to draw, around presidential control of independent agencies.
What is clear is that the ruling gives the president more power, and Gorsuch wants everyone, including the president's own appointees, to understand what that power can look like when it is aimed at a microphone.
The right has spent decades arguing that government should not pick winners and losers. That principle does not come with a late-night exemption.