FCC v. AT&T
The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that the FCC's process for issuing fine orders against AT&T and Verizon did not violate the constitutional right to a jury trial, because those orders don't actually require payment until the government wins a fresh jury trial in court.
The decision draws a crucial line between agency penalty schemes that are immediately collectible — which a prior ruling struck down — and schemes like the FCC's, where no money can be collected without a full de novo jury trial, preserving companies' jury rights before any real obligation to pay attaches.
How it got here: Both carriers paid their fines under protest, then filed petitions for review in their respective circuits; the Fifth Circuit vacated the FCC's order against AT&T, the Second Circuit upheld the FCC's order against Verizon, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the conflict.
The Case in Depth
What happened
AT&T and Verizon ran programs that sold customers' precise location data through third-party intermediaries. In 2018, news reports revealed security breaches — including a Missouri sheriff who obtained location data without proper legal authorization. The FCC investigated and issued orders fining AT&T roughly $57 million and Verizon roughly $47 million for failing to take required steps to protect customer location data. Both carriers paid under protest and went to court arguing that the FCC's process was unconstitutional because the agency made all the findings and imposed penalties without any jury involvement.
The question before the Court
Can the FCC impose multimillion-dollar fines on telecom companies through its own internal process — without a jury — before taking them to court to collect?
The Court's answer
No — the FCC's forfeiture process does not violate the Seventh Amendment's guarantee of a jury trial, because an FCC forfeiture order does not create any binding legal obligation to pay. The FCC cannot seize assets or execute on its orders; no penalties attach for ignoring them; no interest accrues; and the statute bars the FCC from using an unpaid order against a regulated company in future proceedings. The order is simply the agency's own determination, not a final judgment.
Before the government can actually collect a single dollar, it must file a fresh lawsuit and prove its case to a jury in a full trial de novo — as if the FCC had never made any findings at all. That jury has the last word on both the facts and the law. Because the carriers retain their full right to a jury trial before any obligation to pay becomes final, the Constitution is satisfied.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Telecommunications companies and other FCC-regulated businesses now know the agency's fine orders are not self-executing — no money is owed until the government wins a jury trial in court. But the decision also clarifies that companies cannot force the government to bring that suit. The ruling shapes how federal agencies across the government must structure enforcement to stay on the constitutional side of the line drawn in Jarkesy.
What changes now
The Fifth Circuit's ruling that had struck down and vacated the FCC's order against AT&T is reversed, and that case goes back to the Fifth Circuit for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's decision. The Second Circuit's ruling upholding the FCC's order against Verizon is affirmed. Both carriers already paid their fines; the Court expressly left open whether they are entitled to refunds or what relief might be available, saying nothing about the merits of those potential claims.
What this does not decide
The Court does not decide whether carriers must pay a fine before seeking Hobbs Act review in the court of appeals, or whether AT&T and Verizon are entitled to refunds after paying orders the government now describes as non-binding. It also does not address whether lower courts that previously denied de novo review in FCC collection suits were acting correctly.
Concurrences and dissents
How the Justices voted
Majority (8). Justice Roberts (author), joined by Justice Alito, Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, Justice Gorsuch, Justice Kavanaugh, Justice Barrett, and Justice Jackson.
Dissent (1). Justice Thomas (author).
Dissent — Justice Thomas
Justice Thomas agrees with the majority that the carriers were constitutionally entitled to a jury trial before being forced to pay — but he would give them relief rather than rule in the government's favor. He argues that when the FCC issued its orders, both the Commission and the courts treated them as binding: the orders commanded payment within 30 days, the FCC explicitly claimed no Article III court was needed, and no carrier had ever received a jury trial in an FCC collection action. AT&T and Verizon reasonably believed compliance was mandatory, paid under protest, and diligently preserved their objections — and the Court now punishes them for doing exactly what regulated parties are encouraged to do. Read the full dissent →
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Seventh Amendment preserves the right to a jury trial in civil suits wherever legal rights will be conclusively determined, but prior Supreme Court decisions — including Meeker v. Lehigh Valley Railroad (1915) and Ex parte Peterson (1920) — have consistently allowed non-jury agencies or officials to make preliminary factual findings, so long as a jury retains the final say before any binding obligation attaches.
- The Court asked whether FCC forfeiture orders actually create a legal obligation to pay. Multiple features of the statute showed they do not: the FCC has no power to seize assets or place liens on property; no penalties attach for simply ignoring an order; no interest accrues on the stated amount; and the statute explicitly bars the FCC from using an unresolved forfeiture order against a company in other agency proceedings.
- The statute also specifies that the FCC's factual findings carry zero weight in any later collection proceeding — because collection can happen only through a 'trial de novo,' meaning a completely fresh proceeding in court before a jury, conducted as if the agency had never found any facts at all. The jury, not the FCC, makes the ultimate determination.
- This differs critically from SEC v. Jarkesy (2024), where the Court struck down the SEC's in-house penalty system. There, SEC fines were immediately collectible through wage garnishment and tax deductions, and any later court enforcement did not provide a jury for the underlying violation — leaving the agency as the final and only factfinder. Here, by contrast, no money can be collected without a jury trial.
- The carriers' second argument — that the scheme unconstitutionally pressures them to pay (waiving jury rights) rather than wait for an enforcement suit that may never materialize — also failed. The Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial only attaches when a 'suit' is filed. If the government never brings an enforcement action, the carriers owe nothing and no jury right ever arises; there is nothing to waive.
- The Court also rejected the argument that reputational harm from a forfeiture order entitles carriers to a jury. The Seventh Amendment text applies only to suits where 'the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars,' and preliminary reputational harm from the filing of a complaint or other legal proceedings has never, on its own, been held to trigger the right to a jury.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Distinguishes SEC v. Jarkesy (603 U.S. 109)
Unlike immediately collectible SEC fines, FCC orders require a full jury trial before any payment can be enforced.
Reaffirms Meeker v. Lehigh Valley R. Co. (236 U.S. 412)
Non-jury preliminary agency findings are constitutional when a jury retains final say before any obligation attaches.
Reaffirms Ex parte Peterson (253 U.S. 300)
A non-jury officer may make initial factual findings as long as the jury makes the ultimate determination.