Federal Judge Rules Nexstar Violated Order Separating It From Tegna, Bars Its Executives From Tegna's Board
U.S. District Judge Troy Nunley found on August 6, 2026 that Nexstar Media Group broke the hold-separate injunction in the states' antitrust case over its $6.2 billion Tegna deal by seating its own top executives on Tegna's board; Nexstar says it will comply while it appeals.
A Board Full of Its Own Executives, and a Judge Who Called That Shocking
Nexstar Media Group owns Tegna Inc. on paper. It bought the local-TV giant for $6.2 billion, and it announced the deal had closed on March 19, 2026 — just hours after eight state attorneys general sued to stop it [15][18]. But a federal judge had already ordered the two companies to stay operationally separate while the antitrust case plays out, with separate management and separate newsrooms [7][18]. So Nexstar owns a company it isn't allowed to run.
That contradiction is what makes the latest ruling matter. On August 6, 2026, U.S. District Chief Judge Troy L. Nunley found that Nexstar broke that separation order anyway [1][2][3]. Not by merging newsrooms or cutting staff, but by doing something simpler: putting its own top executives, including CEO Perry Sook, on Tegna's board of directors [1][3].
"It is shocking that Defendants think installing a Board of Directors comprised primarily of Nexstar executives would not create influence over Tegna management," Nunley wrote [1][2]. He ordered Nexstar's people off the board, required a compliance report within 10 days, and told the company to hand over Tegna's board minutes to the plaintiffs every month. He's also moving to appoint a special master or magistrate judge to keep watch [1][2][3].
What a Board Actually Does, and Why That Was the Fight
To see why board seats were the flashpoint, it helps to know what a corporate board is for. A board of directors hires and fires top management, approves budgets, and sets strategy — it's the body that actually controls a company, even if it never touches day-to-day operations [1][23].
That's exactly why the states cared. Their argument is straightforward: a hold-separate order means nothing if the buyer can install its own CEO and CFO as the seller's directors. Whoever sits on that board effectively runs the company, no matter what the org chart says below it [1][23].
Nexstar's defense wasn't that the appointments didn't happen — both sides agree they did. Instead, the company argued that as Tegna's legal owner, it was entitled to name directors, and that naming a board is a matter of corporate formality, not the operational integration the injunction actually banned [3][14]. Nunley didn't buy it, and he added that Nexstar hadn't been forthcoming about the appointments in the first place, faulting the company's "lack of candor" [1].
The Deal Nobody Fully Blocked and Nobody Fully Approved
The reason this dispute exists at all is that two different parts of the government looked at the same merger and reached opposite conclusions. The FCC's Media Bureau approved the license transfers in March 2026, waiving a rule that had capped any single owner from reaching more than 39% of U.S. TV households, and requiring six station divestitures within two years [10][18]. Eight state attorneys general, led by California and including North Carolina's Jeff Jackson, saw it differently and sued the next day to block the deal entirely [9][16].
Federal approval and state antitrust review are separate lanes. The FCC licenses stations; state attorneys general enforce antitrust law on behalf of their own consumers. One agency clearing a deal doesn't shield it from another authority's antitrust challenge, which is exactly why a deal the FCC blessed is still sitting frozen in court [7][18].
The scale at stake explains the fight. Combined, Nexstar and Tegna would own 265 TV stations in 44 states and Washington, D.C. — most of them ABC, CBS, Fox or NBC affiliates — reaching about 80% of U.S. TV households [5][18]. The two companies already compete head-to-head in 35 local markets [18].
Underneath the headlines about newsrooms is a quieter fight over money, and it's the one satellite provider DirecTV has staked its whole case on. Local stations negotiate "retransmission fees" with cable and satellite providers — payments those providers make to carry the station's signal, station by station [5][9]. If one company owns both the ABC and NBC affiliate in the same city, a distributor can no longer drop one and keep the other. That lost leverage, DirecTV and the states argue, is how prices go up for subscribers down the line [5][9][14].
Two Regulators, One Vote, One Dissent
The same day Nunley issued his ruling, the FCC did something that cuts against the states' entire premise: it voted, 2 to 1 along party lines, to eliminate the 39% ownership cap altogether [12]. Chairman Brendan Carr argued the rule was written for an analog-era market that no longer exists, and that waiving it "promotes competition, localism, and diversity" by letting local broadcasters reach the scale they need to compete with YouTube, Netflix and Google — platforms that face no ownership limits at all [11][13].
But that vote is itself contested, and not along the lines you'd expect. The sole Democratic commissioner, Anna Gomez, dissented, arguing the repeal is "unlawful on its face" because Congress — not the FCC — wrote the 39% cap into federal law in 2004, and specifically barred the agency from declining to enforce it [24]. If she's right, the FCC just voted to erase a rule it doesn't have the legal power to erase, which sets up a separate court fight over the cap itself.
The politics don't split cleanly by party, either. Republican attorneys general in Indiana, Kansas and Pennsylvania later joined the originally Democratic-led lawsuit against the merger [5][6]. And Republican Sen. Ted Cruz has questioned Carr's process, while Democrats including Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Doris Matsui argue the FCC sidestepped the ownership cap altogether [21][22].
The Argument Nobody's Won Yet
Strip away the board dispute, and the deeper argument is about what's actually happening to local news. Nexstar's case is that TV stations aren't really competing with each other anymore — they're competing with streaming platforms and Big Tech, and only scale keeps local newsrooms funded at all [13][20]. The states and DirecTV counter that combining two competitors in the same market is a textbook path to higher fees and, eventually, fewer reporters covering the same city council meetings [5][9].
Neither claim has been tested at trial. The injunction rests on a judge's finding that the states are likely to win their case — a lower bar than actual proof [5][7]. A trial has been proposed for July 2027, which means this half-merged arrangement, Nexstar owning Tegna on paper while running it at arm's length, could stretch on for close to another year [17].
Coverage of the ruling itself has split less on substance than on which side got centered. Industry trade outlets like Deadline and The Desk led with the mechanics of the board order and Nunley's sharpest quotes [2][3]. NBC News covered it straight but doesn't disclose that its parent company, Comcast, is itself a pay-TV distributor with a direct financial stake in the retransmission-fee fight [5][6]. Right-leaning outlets like the Washington Examiner focused almost entirely on the FCC's deregulatory case, with little space for the injunction violation or the Republican AGs suing to stop the deal [11]. And the North Carolina Department of Justice's own release, understandably, stated the states' predicted consumer harms as settled fact rather than the contested claim they still are [1].
Nexstar says it will comply with the board order while continuing to appeal the underlying injunction at the Ninth Circuit [3]. Whether a merged Nexstar-Tegna raises bills or cuts newsroom jobs, the question the whole case turns on, still won't have a courtroom answer for the better part of a year.
Summary
A federal judge has ruled that Nexstar Media Group broke a court order meant to keep it from absorbing Tegna Inc. while an antitrust case plays out. U.S. District Chief Judge Troy L. Nunley in Sacramento issued the ruling on August 6, 2026[1][2]. The problem was Nexstar's board picks. After the injunction, Nexstar seated several of its own top executives, including CEO Perry Sook, on Tegna's board of directors[1][3]. "It is shocking that Defendants think installing a Board of Directors comprised primarily of Nexstar executives would not create influence over Tegna management," Nunley wrote[1][2]. He said that undermines Tegna as an independent company and violates his order.
North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson, a Democrat, went back to court over the appointments and publicized the result[1]. He is one of eight state attorneys general who sued on March 18, 2026 to stop Nexstar's $6.2 billion purchase of Tegna[9][16]. California leads the case, and satellite provider DirecTV is a parallel plaintiff[7]. The states say the combined company would own 265 TV stations in 44 states and Washington, D.C., reaching about 80% of U.S. TV households, and would raise the fees pay-TV providers pay to carry local stations[5][9].
The deal itself is in an odd half-state. The FCC's Media Bureau approved the license transfers in March 2026, waiving a rule capping one owner at 39% of U.S. households[10][18]. Nexstar announced it had closed the purchase on March 19, hours after the states sued[15][18]. Nunley then froze the integration: Nexstar owns Tegna on paper, but Tegna must keep separate management and separate newsrooms until the case is decided[7][18]. Trial has been proposed for July 2027[17].
The genuine dispute is not whether the executives were appointed. Both sides agree they were. It is what the injunction actually forbade. Nexstar argued that as Tegna's legal owner it was entitled to name directors, and that naming them is not the same as merging operations[3][14]. The states argued that a board made mostly of the buyer's own officers is exactly how control gets exercised, and that Nexstar did not clearly disclose it[1][23]. Nunley sided with the states and criticized Nexstar's "lack of candor"[1]. Nexstar said it will comply and keeps defending the deal on the merits, and its appeal of the underlying injunction is still pending at the Ninth Circuit[3].
The Event
On August 6, 2026, U.S. District Chief Judge Troy L. Nunley of the Eastern District of California ruled that Nexstar Media Group violated the preliminary injunction he issued on April 17 in the state attorneys general's antitrust suit over Nexstar's $6.2 billion acquisition of Tegna Inc.[1][2][3]. The violation he identified was the appointment of Nexstar executives, including CEO Perry Sook, to Tegna's board of directors[1][3]. Nunley ruled that current and former Nexstar personnel may not serve on Tegna's board, ordered Nexstar to file a compliance report within 10 days, ordered monthly delivery of Tegna board minutes and related documents to the plaintiffs, and moved to appoint a special master or magistrate judge to police compliance[1][2][3]. North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson, one of the plaintiff AGs, announced the ruling the same week[1].
Undisputed Facts
- Nexstar Media Group announced on August 19, 2025 that it would buy Tegna Inc. for $6.2 billion[18].
- The combined company would own 265 television stations in 44 states and Washington, D.C., most of them affiliates of ABC, CBS, Fox or NBC[5][18].
- The FCC's Media Bureau approved the license transfers in March 2026 and waived the rule barring one owner from reaching more than 39% of U.S. TV households; it required six station divestitures within two years[10][18].
- Eight state attorneys general, including North Carolina's Jeff Jackson, sued to block the deal on March 18, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California; DirecTV filed a parallel challenge[9][16][7].
- Nexstar announced the acquisition had closed on March 19, 2026, hours after the states sued[15][18].
- Judge Troy L. Nunley issued a temporary restraining order on March 27, 2026 and a preliminary injunction on April 17, 2026, requiring Nexstar and Tegna to keep separate management and separate newsrooms while the case proceeds[7][18].
- Nexstar appointed several of its own senior executives, including CEO Perry Sook, to Tegna's board of directors after the injunction issued[1][3].
- On August 6, 2026, Nunley ruled those appointments violated the injunction, criticized Nexstar's "lack of candor," barred current and former Nexstar personnel from Tegna's board, and ordered added compliance reporting[1][2][3].
- Nexstar has appealed the underlying injunction to the Ninth Circuit; that appeal was still pending as of the August 6 ruling[3].
- Republican attorneys general in Indiana, Kansas and Pennsylvania later joined the suit alongside the Democratic AGs who filed it[5][6].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- Broadcast economics are shrinking
- Local TV revenue depends on two streams under pressure: advertising, which keeps moving to digital platforms, and retransmission fees, which shrink as pay-TV subscribers cancel. Consolidation is the industry's standard response, because one back office and one master control can serve many stations[13][20]. This pressure exists no matter how the lawsuit ends.
- Retransmission leverage is the real money
- The dispute is less about news than about a negotiation. Owning both must-have affiliates in a market removes the distributor's ability to drop one and keep the other. That is why DirecTV, a company with no interest in journalism, is the co-plaintiff driving much of the litigation[7][14].
- A federal approval and a state antitrust suit can point opposite ways
- The FCC licenses stations; state AGs enforce antitrust law. The FCC waived the cap and approved the transfers, and has since voted to eliminate the cap[10][12]. None of that immunizes the deal from antitrust review, which is why a closed deal is sitting frozen[7][18].
- Closing first, litigating after
- Nexstar declared the deal closed hours after the states sued[15][18]. Whatever the legal merits, that move made every later step a fight over control of a company Nexstar already owns on paper — which is exactly the ambiguity the board dispute turned on.
Material realityAs of August 12, 2026, Nexstar legally owns Tegna but cannot run it. The April 17 injunction requires separate management and separate newsrooms, and it stands while the Ninth Circuit weighs Nexstar's appeal[7][18][3]. The August 6 order removes Nexstar personnel from Tegna's board, requires a compliance report within 10 days, sends Tegna board minutes to the plaintiffs monthly, and sets up a special master or magistrate judge to supervise[1][2][3]. Trial has been proposed for July 2027, so this half-merged state could last roughly another year[17]. Meanwhile the FCC voted 2-1 along party lines on August 6, 2026 to eliminate the 39% national ownership cap, meaning the federal rule the states cite as evidence of over-concentration no longer exists in its old form[12]. That vote is itself contested: the sole Democratic commissioner, Anna Gomez, dissented on the grounds that Congress, not the FCC, fixed the 39% cap into federal law in 2004 and barred the agency from declining to enforce it, calling the repeal "unlawful on its face"[24] — a dissent that previews a likely separate legal challenge to the repeal. The core merger numbers are unchanged: 265 stations, 44 states plus D.C., about 80% of U.S. TV households, and 35 markets where the two companies currently overlap[5][18]. No court has yet ruled after a full trial on whether the merger would in fact raise bills or cut newsroom jobs; the injunction rests on a finding that the states are likely to win, which is a lower bar than proof[5][7].
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asTheir case rests on two everyday harms, not abstractions. First, retransmission consent fees: cable and satellite companies must pay a local station to carry its signal, and the price is negotiated station by station. If one owner controls both the ABC and the NBC affiliate in the same town, the cable company can no longer walk away from one and keep the other, so the owner can charge more, and that cost lands on subscriber bills[5][9]. The two firms overlap in 35 local markets[18]. Second, the states say one owner running formerly competing newsrooms means merged coverage and fewer reporters[9]. On the August ruling, their argument is narrower and, they say, obvious: a hold-separate order is worthless if the buyer can install its own CEO and CFO as the seller's directors. Boards hire and fire management and approve budgets, so that is control by another name[1][23]. Jackson also stresses a rule-of-law point: a company that closed hours after being sued and then did not clearly disclose the board changes needs supervision, not trust[1][15].
WhyState AGs enforce antitrust law for their own consumers and gain politically from visible fights against price increases. Jackson, a first-term Democrat elected in 2024, is building a consumer-protection record in a state where local TV is a major news source[1][16]. California AG Rob Bonta leads the case and its national profile[9].
Impact on themA win preserves separate stations and newsrooms in their states and sets precedent on hold-separate enforcement. A loss would leave them having fought and lost a merger the federal government already blessed[10].
Frames it asNexstar's strongest argument is about who local TV actually competes with. Its executives say the rival for viewers and ad dollars is no longer the station across town; it is YouTube, Netflix and Google, which face no ownership caps at all[13][20]. On that view, scale is what keeps local newsrooms funded, and blocking it slowly starves the thing the states say they are protecting. Nexstar also notes it followed the process: the FCC, the expert agency Congress assigned to broadcast ownership, approved the transfers and waived the cap, and the FCC voted on August 6, 2026 to scrap the 39% cap entirely[10][12]. On the board question specifically, Nexstar argued it lawfully owns Tegna's stock, that a corporation must have directors, and that appointing them is a matter of corporate formality rather than the operational integration the injunction actually banned[3][14]. Nexstar has publicly criticized DirecTV, a pay-TV company with a direct financial interest in keeping station fees low, as the real driver of the case[14].
WhyNexstar has already paid for and closed on Tegna; every month under the injunction is a month it carries the cost without the promised savings from combining operations[18][19]. It wants the Ninth Circuit to narrow or lift the order and wants to avoid a contempt record that would hurt it at the 2027 trial[3][17].
Impact on themIts executives are off Tegna's board, its internal documents now flow monthly to opposing counsel, and a special master may sit over its compliance[1][2]. That raises legal costs and slows any integration. The judge's language about candor is also reputational damage heading into trial[1].
Frames it asCarr's position is that the 39% national ownership cap is a rule from the analog era being applied to a market that no longer exists. He argued that waiving it here "is consistent with longstanding FCC authorities" and serves "competition, localism, and diversity" — because broadcasters that cannot reach scale cannot fund local news at all[11][13]. Allies add that Congress gave the FCC, not state courts, authority over broadcast licenses, and that a state antitrust suit second-guessing a federal license approval invites a patchwork of state-by-state media policy. The FCC voted on August 6, 2026, 2-1 along party lines, to eliminate the cap outright[12]. The lone dissenter, Democratic Commissioner Anna Gomez, argued the vote itself is legally void: Congress, not the FCC, set the 39% figure into federal law in 2004 and specifically barred the agency from declining to enforce it, making the repeal "unlawful on its face"[24]. Carr's camp counters that the FCC retains authority to replace the bright-line cap with case-by-case review and expects any challenge to be resolved in court rather than to block the vote[12].
WhyCarr has pursued broadcast deregulation as a signature policy; broadcasters have sought the cap's removal for years[12][13]. A collapsed Nexstar-Tegna deal would be a visible setback to that agenda.
Impact on themThe FCC's approval stands, but the court order shows federal license approval does not end antitrust exposure. Members of Congress from both parties have questioned the Media Bureau's process — Democrats Warren, Matsui and Neguse over sidestepping the cap, and Republican Sen. Ted Cruz over approving without a full commission vote[21][22] — and Gomez's dissent previews a separate legal fight over whether the FCC's August 6 repeal was ever within its authority[24].
Frames it asDirecTV's argument is concrete and self-interested, and it does not hide that. It pays retransmission fees to carry local stations. If a single owner controls more of the must-have affiliates in a market, DirecTV loses the ability to say no, and it says the practical result is higher fees passed to subscribers or blackouts when talks fail[7][14]. It frames the merger as bargaining leverage transferred wholesale from distributors and their customers to one broadcaster.
WhyLower programming costs directly improve DirecTV's margins as it loses subscribers to streaming. A blocked merger keeps its negotiating position intact[14].
Impact on themAs a plaintiff, it now receives Tegna's monthly board minutes under the compliance order[1]. Nexstar has publicly cast it as the commercial rival funding the fight, which is a claim about motive DirecTV does not really dispute[14].
Frames it asJournalists' unions and the plaintiff states argue that when one company owns two stations in a town, the predictable move is to merge the newsrooms and cut the duplicate anchor, photographer and reporter[9][20]. The counterargument, made by broadcasters and some industry analysts, is that many local newsrooms are already losing money, and that without consolidation the choice is not two newsrooms versus one but one newsroom versus none[20].
WhyEmployees want job security; viewers want coverage of their own city councils and storms. Neither is a party to the case, so their interest is argued on their behalf by others[9][20].
Impact on themUnder the injunction, Tegna newsrooms stay separate for now[7][18]. The eventual outcome, expected no earlier than the proposed July 2027 trial, determines whether markets where both companies own stations keep two independent operations[17].
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 3.3
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deadline | U.S. entertainment trade, industry-facing | 2 | "Judge Rules Nexstar Officials No Longer Can Serve On Tegna's Board" — leads with the operative remedy and quotes the judge's "shocking" line[2]. | Frames the story as corporate-governance mechanics for readers who already know the deal. Fair to both sides, but the industry lens treats the merger's business logic as a given and spends little space on consumer bills. |
| The Desk | U.S. independent media-industry trade | 2 | "Judge says Nexstar can't appoint its executives to TEGNA's Board of Directors" — procedural, with Nexstar's compliance statement included[3]. | The verb "scolds" appears in the URL slug while the headline stays flat — a small signal that the judge's tone is the hook. Otherwise unusually careful about distinguishing the Media Bureau's approval from a full commission vote. |
| Axios | U.S. center, business-insider style | 2 | "FCC votes to lift broadcast ownership cap" — same-day as the court ruling, framed as a regulatory milestone[12]. | Treats the FCC vote and the courtroom loss as separate beats. The omission matters: on August 6, 2026 Nexstar won the rule change it wanted and lost the compliance fight, and few outlets put the two in one frame. |
| TheWrap | U.S. center-left entertainment trade | 3 | "Judge Says Nexstar Violated Tegna Merger Preliminary Injunction With Board Appointments"[4]. | Accurate, but foregrounds "violated" and the judge's quotes over Nexstar's ownership-rights argument, which appears late and briefly. |
| NBC News | U.S. center-left; owned by Comcast, a pay-TV company with a direct stake in retransmission fees | 3 | "Federal judge blocks Nexstar-Tegna TV station merger until antitrust lawsuit is settled" and, separately, "Republican state attorneys general join lawsuit to stop $6.2B local TV merger"[5][6]. | Solid reporting, but the ownership matters and is rarely disclosed in the stories: Comcast is among the distributors that would pay the higher fees at issue. The Republican-AGs framing also usefully cuts against a partisan read of the case. |
| Washington Examiner | U.S. right | 4 | "Carr says FCC Media Bureau's approval of Nexstar-Tegna merger not final" — the story is about FCC process and Carr's deregulatory case[11]. | The right-leaning frame is agency-centric: the cap is outdated, broadcasters need scale against Big Tech. The injunction fight and the consumer-price argument get little room, and the Republican AGs suing to block the deal are largely absent. |
| North Carolina Department of Justice | Party to the case; office of a Democratic state attorney general | 7 | "Judge Finds Nexstar Violated Court Order Freezing TV Merger" — presented as a win for Jackson[1]. | A litigant's press release, not journalism. It states as fact that the merger would "likely lead to higher cable bills and local newsroom layoffs" — the states' contested prediction, which no court has yet ruled on after trial. It also omits Nexstar's competition-with-streamers defense entirely. |
References
- Judge Finds Nexstar Violated Court Order Freezing TV Merger — North Carolina Department of Justice · Litigant; office of Democratic AG Jeff Jackson, a plaintiff in the case
- Judge Rules Nexstar Officials No Longer Can Serve On Tegna's Board — Deadline · U.S. entertainment trade, owned by Penske Media
- Judge says Nexstar can't appoint its executives to TEGNA's Board of Directors — The Desk · Independent U.S. media-industry trade site
- Judge Says Nexstar Violated Tegna Merger Preliminary Injunction With Board Appointments — TheWrap · U.S. center-left entertainment trade
- Federal judge blocks Nexstar-Tegna TV station merger until antitrust lawsuit is settled — NBC News · U.S. center-left; owned by Comcast, a pay-TV distributor with a stake in the fee dispute
- Republican state attorneys general join lawsuit to stop $6.2B local TV merger — NBC News · U.S. center-left; Comcast-owned
- Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction Against Nexstar's Tegna Takeover, Orders Nexstar to Halt Integration Plans — Variety · U.S. entertainment trade, Penske Media
- Nexstar-Tegna merger litigation: preliminary injunction filing (PDF) — New York State Office of the Attorney General · Court filing posted by a plaintiff state AG's office
- Attorney General Bonta Files Lawsuit Seeking to Block $6.2 Billion Nexstar/Tegna Broadcasting Merger — California Department of Justice · Litigant; office of Democratic AG Rob Bonta, lead plaintiff
- FCC green-lights Nexstar's $6.2B merger with rival TV station owner Tegna — NBC News · U.S. center-left; Comcast-owned
- Carr says FCC Media Bureau's approval of Nexstar-Tegna merger not final — Washington Examiner · U.S. right, conservative-funded
- FCC votes to lift broadcast ownership cap — Axios · U.S. center, business-oriented
- U.S. agency to vote to end 39% local TV station ownership cap — CNBC · U.S. business press, owned by Comcast
- Nexstar Decries $6.2B Tegna Merger Injunction, Calls Out DirecTV & State AGs — Deadline · U.S. entertainment trade; carries Nexstar's own arguments at length
- Attorney General Jeff Jackson Files Emergency Motion After Nexstar Rushes to Close TV Merger Just Hours After States Sue to Block It — North Carolina Department of Justice · Litigant press release, Democratic AG's office
- NC joins multi-state lawsuit to block $6B Nexstar merger — NC Newsline · North Carolina nonprofit outlet, progressive-leaning (States Newsroom network)
- Parties in Nexstar-TEGNA merger lawsuit propose July 2027 trial date — The Desk · Independent U.S. media-industry trade site
- Merger of Nexstar Media Group and Tegna Inc. — Wikipedia · Crowd-edited encyclopedia; used only for dates cross-checked against other sources
- Nexstar COO Mike Biard Defends The Legally Challenged Call To Declare Tegna Deal Closed — Deadline · U.S. entertainment trade; presents Nexstar's defense
- Nexstar-Tegna Merger: Local News Monopolization Or Industry Evolution? — TVNewsCheck · Broadcast-industry trade publication, advertiser- and broadcaster-supported
- Senators Question FCC Chairman Over Approval Of Nexstar-Tegna Merger — Deadline · U.S. entertainment trade
- Senator Warren, Lawmakers Push FCC, DOJ to Closely Scrutinize Nexstar's Acquisition of Tegna — Office of U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren · Democratic senator's official press release; advocacy
- States, DIRECTV accused Nexstar of controlling TEGNA despite injunction — The Desk · Independent U.S. media-industry trade site
- Statement of Commissioner Anna M. Gomez, Dissenting, Re: Modification of Broadcast Ownership Rule — Federal Communications Commission · Official dissent statement by a Democratic FCC commissioner