A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that the Trump administration’s executive order to end federal funding for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service was unconstitutional.

The ruling’s impact is unclear. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia noted that since Congress withdrew funding through last year’s Rescissions Act, and because the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has dissolved, no order can provide “meaningful relief” regarding that specific pool of money.

But Judge Randolph Moss repeatedly wrote in the Tuesday ruling that President Trump’s order crossed the line of the First Amendment. Moss was appointed to the D.C. district court in 2014 under President Obama’s administration.

Moss said that the order was issued without regard to nationwide interconnection systems, calling such distribution the “backbones” of public radio and TV.

Colorado Public Radio was a partner in the lawsuit challenging the executive order, along with NPR, Aspen Public Radio and KSUT. CPR said in a release that the ruling prevents the executive order from restricting CPR and other stations from using any federal funds for NPR content. In December, Radio World reported on the stations’ concerns.

NPR, according to its own reporting, said that it was not clear what the decision, which could be appealed by the Trump administration, would mean for the future of federal funding of public broadcasting. But the organization’s comments celebrated the decision.

“Today’s ruling is a decisive affirmation of the rights of a free and independent press — and a win for NPR, our network of stations and our tens of millions of listeners nationwide,” Katherine Maher, NPR’s president and CEO, said in a release.

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement: “This is a ridiculous ruling by an activist judge attempting to undermine the law.”

Representatives from the three Colorado public radio stations, according to a release, said the stations remain prepared to defend the ruling should the Trump administration appeal.

Timeline
The executive order issued by President Trump last May ultimately clawed back $1.1 billion in funding that Congress had set aside for public media outlets. Later last year, it led to a dispute between CPB and NPR over public radio distribution.

CPB dissolved this past February.

The D.C. court acknowledged in its order that while the federal government may impose limits on grants or fund its own speech to promote specific perspectives, “the First Amendment draws a line, which the government may not cross, at efforts to use government power — including the power of the purse — ‘to punish or suppress disfavored expression’ by others.”

Although CPB has been dissolved, the court clarified that this does not render the case moot because the executive order “sweeps beyond the CPB.”

The court is also issuing a permanent injunction to prevent federal agencies from enforcing the executive order.

In a statement, PBS, said it was “thrilled with today’s decision,” calling the president’s order a “textbook unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and retaliation, in violation of longstanding First Amendment principles.”

IRVING, Texas—Following threats from the Federal Communications Commission and the announcement that the nation's largest station group, Nexstar Media Group, would preempt ABC's late night “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” because of "offensive" comments made by the talk show host, ABC announced that it was taking the show off the air "Indefinitely."

ABC and Nexstar made their announcements after FCC Chair Brendan Carr denounced Kimmel's comments as "sick." In an interview on the "Benny Show", Carr threatened to take action to remove the licenses from ABC affiliates who aired the show.

“We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said. “These companies can find ways to change conduct and take actions on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

Carr made the comments in an Sept. 17 appearance on Benny Johnson’s podcast, "Benny Show", which can be accessed below.

Kimmel's comments have been criticized for appearing to say that the alleged killer of Kirk was a MAGA supporter, an allegation that Carr called "sick."

Nexstar said it will drop the show "for the foreseeable future" because the station group strongly objects to recent comments made by Mr. Kimmel concerning the killing of Charlie Kirk. Nexstar said it will replace the show with other programming in its ABC-affiliated markets.

In response to the Nexstar's decision, Carr wrote in a social media post that "I want to thank Nexstar for doing the right thing. Local broadcasters have an obligation to serve the public interest. While this may be an unprecedented decision, it is important for broadcasters to push back on Disney programming that they determine falls short of community values. I hope that other broadcasters follow Nexstar’s lead."

Nexstar issued this statement about its decision:

“Mr. Kimmel’s comments about the death of Mr. Kirk are offensive and insensitive at a critical time in our national political discourse, and we do not believe they reflect the spectrum of opinions, views, or values of the local communities in which we are located,” said Andrew Alford, president of Nexstar’s broadcasting division. “Continuing to give Mr. Kimmel a broadcast platform in the communities we serve is simply not in the public interest at the current time, and we have made the difficult decision to preempt his show in an effort to let cooler heads prevail as we move toward the resumption of respectful, constructive dialogue.”

In response to the controversy, the FCC's lone Democrat, Anna Gomez said "an inexcusable act of political violence by one disturbed individual must never be exploited as justification for broader censorship or control. This Administration is increasingly using the weight of government power to suppress lawful expression, not because it glorifies violence or breaks the law, but because it challenges those in power or reflects views they oppose."

"We must stand firm against every attempt to silence dissent, punish satirists and government critics, and erode individual liberty. To surrender our right to speak freely is to accept that those in power, not the people, will set the boundaries of debate that define a free society," she continued.

PROVO, UTAH—The online entertainment platform VidAngel will be forced to stop offering filtered-content of Hollywood films and TV shows, as the 9th Circuit Court has upheld an injunction on the site’s online distribution of such titles. In a press release, VidAngel says that it will now comply with the injunction, but is urging its supporters to call members of Congress or support other grassroots campaigns.

VidAngel’s goal is to allow users to access filtered-content through streaming. However, Hollywood studios believe that the company is violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to do so, circumventing security measures on DVDs and Blu-Rays that it does not have licensing rights to.

Back in December, the U.S. District Court of California issued an injunction on VidAngel’s distribution of studio content. A few weeks later, Disney, Warner Bros. and Fox claimed that VidAngel was violating the injunction, continuing to offer filtered-content to users, including for DVDs and Blu-Rays that had been released after the injunction. The 9th Circuit Court has now upheld the injunction, requiring VidAngel to remove its filtered-content.

In a press release responding to the court’s decision, VidAngel believes that the injunction and action by the studios is an attack on the 2005 Family Movie Act, which they claim lawfully empowers parents and families to filter content.

“Congress passed the Family Movie Act in 2005 because Hollywood had sued every company that offered content filtering for private, in-home viewing,” said VidAngel CEO Neal Harmon. “Today, a small group of Hollywood studios, led by Disney, is using the legal process to try and render that law meaningless.

“We are asking our supporters to call their members of Congress and urge them to update to the Family Movie Act new language that cannot be misconstrued in court, making it even clearer that filtering is absolutely legal in the streaming age.”

Harmon says that VidAngel’s will now appeal the case, going as far as the Supreme Court if necessary, but also urges supporters to go to the grassroots campaign #SaveFiltering by visiting SaveFiltering.com.