Supreme Court Sides With FCC in Dispute Over Wireless Carrier Fines

In an 8-1 decision, the nation’s highest court ruled that the FCC’s internal procedure for issuing monetary penalties, known as forfeiture orders, does not violate the constitutional right to a jury trial. According to Reuters, the case centered on whether companies facing FCC fines are entitled to have allegations against them decided by a jury before the agency assesses penalties.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said the FCC’s enforcement mechanism does not conclusively determine legal obligations and therefore does not run afoul of constitutional protections.

“Forfeiture orders issued (by the FCC) do not definitively resolve the parties’ legal obligations,” Roberts wrote.

He added: “And the commission’s factual findings are not conclusive. It thus does not offend the Constitution for the commission to issue forfeiture orders without the involvement of a jury.”

Justice Clarence Thomas was the sole dissenter.

The dispute emerged from FCC enforcement actions against major wireless carriers over the handling of customer location information. Per Reuters, the agency fined AT&T $57 million and Verizon nearly $47 million after concluding that the companies improperly sold access to customer location data to third parties without obtaining users’ consent.

The FCC also imposed penalties on other carriers as part of a broader effort to address data privacy concerns. According to Reuters, T-Mobile was fined $80 million, while Sprint, which was acquired by T-Mobile in 2020, received a $12 million penalty. In total, the agency assessed nearly $200 million in fines against carriers it said failed to adequately protect customer information.

Although AT&T and Verizon paid the fines, both companies challenged the FCC’s authority to impose penalties through its internal process. Their lawsuits produced conflicting rulings from federal appeals courts, ultimately prompting Supreme Court review.

In Verizon’s case, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld the FCC’s procedure, finding that the Constitution allows the agency to make an initial penalty determination so long as the government must pursue collection through the courts if challenged. Verizon subsequently appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court.

Read more: FCC Warns NFL Risks Antitrust Trouble as More Games Move to Streaming

AT&T received a more favorable outcome in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, which concluded that the FCC’s initial determination of liability and assessment of a fine deprived the company of its right to a jury trial. That ruling led the FCC to seek Supreme Court intervention.

During the litigation, Justice Department attorneys argued that the FCC’s forfeiture orders are not final or binding because companies retain the ability to contest enforcement actions in federal court before a jury. According to Reuters, government lawyers maintained that the agency’s initial assessments merely begin the process and do not represent a final adjudication of liability.

The companies countered that the FCC was effectively performing a judicial function through internal proceedings that should instead take place in court. They also argued that the agency’s findings can damage a company’s reputation before it has an opportunity to fully defend itself before a jury, per Reuters.

The case is part of a broader legal debate over the authority of federal agencies to conduct enforcement proceedings internally. According to Reuters, it follows a series of Supreme Court decisions scrutinizing administrative agencies, including a 2024 ruling that limited the use of in-house enforcement proceedings by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The decision also marks the latest Supreme Court ruling involving the FCC. Per Reuters, the court in 2025 upheld the agency’s funding structure for a multibillion-dollar program that supports phone and broadband access for low-income households, rural communities and other beneficiaries.

Source: Reuters