The US Supreme Court ruled 8-1 to support the Federal Communications Commission’s system for levying fines, rejecting challenges from AT&T and Verizon, according to The Guardian. At issue was whether the FCC’s in-house proceedings for imposing penalties deprived the companies of their right to a jury trial under the US Constitution — Trump’s administration defended the FCC’s system, known as forfeiture orders, for assessing financial penalties.

Constitutional Debate Over Agency Enforcement

Chief Justice John Roberts. A conservative. Authored the ruling. But Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter in the decision, and the court embraced the administration’s argument that the FCC’s in-house system does not prevent parties from bringing legal challenges to the agency’s assessments. This marked the latest case to test whether internal enforcement by federal agencies violates the constitutional right to a jury trial.

This case followed the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision that curbed the power of in-house proceedings at the Securities and Exchange Commission — In that case, the court ruled that certain enforcement actions by the SEC must be subject to judicial review and not just agency discretion.

FCC Fines Targeting Data Misconduct

The FCC fined AT&T $57 million and Verizon nearly $47 million after the agency concluded that the companies had unlawfully sold access to customer location data to third parties without securing user consent. In total, the FCC imposed nearly $200 million in fines on carriers that it said failed to safeguard customer data.

T-Mobile was fined $80 million, and Sprint, which T-Mobile acquired in 2020, was fined $12 million. While Verizon and AT&T paid the fines, they also filed legal challenges that led to a split among regional US appellate courts over the lawfulness of the FCC’s in-house procedure for imposing the penalties.

Government and Industry Legal Arguments

Justice Department lawyers defending the FCC’s in-house system argued that the agency’s assessments were not binding. They stated that if the government brought an enforcement action in court, it would allow the companies to present their case before a jury. The companies, however, argued that the FCC’s system impermissibly uses in-house proceedings for a process that belongs in court, depriving them of their right to a jury trial.

They also claimed that the FCC’s initial assessments inflict reputational harm before the accused have had their day in court. The ruling has significant implications for the regulatory power of federal agencies and the balance between executive enforcement and constitutional rights.