General Discussion

Word choice and tone of what Carr said.

Existence of regulatory authority.

Understood as a threat.

Implying adverse consequences otherwise.

The above factors are all surely present in Kimmel v. Carr.

What is the remedy? Monetary damages? From whom? Carr under the Federal Tort Claims Act? (Vullo didn't pay anything due to the doctrine of qualified immunity.) The broadcasters who decline to carry Kimmel's show? (They were just responding to a threat by an official whom they perceive can make good on that threat. And broadcasters ultimately get to decide what to carry in their communities for a whole range of legitimate standards they are entrusted to apply.)

Kimmel's lawyers will be negotiating a buyout of his remaining contract with the network wherein ABC absorbs all costs of shutting down including severance pay for the staff.

Part of that settlement with the network might also mean that ABC pursues a principled case against Carr for violation of the First Amendment. This would be a righteous pursuit Kimmel seems like the kind of guy to demand. And, as you point out, having slam-dunk on-point recent precedent available to cite.

Where did you learn of the Vullo decision?