In an 8-1 ruling, the US Supreme Court sided with the Federal Communications Commission, upholding its system for levying wireless-carrier fines through in-house forfeiture proceedings. The justices rejected a constitutional challenge from AT&T and Verizon ove
The Supreme Court’s decision landed with a clear message for wireless carriers facing FCC penalties: the agency can keep its internal path for assessing fines.
On Thursday. the court backed the Federal Communications Commission’s system for levying forfeiture-style penalties. ruling against wireless carriers AT&T and Verizon in their challenge to the agency. The vote was 8-1, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority opinion. Clarence Thomas, the court’s lone dissenter, disagreed.
At the center of the dispute was a constitutional claim. AT&T and Verizon argued that the FCC’s in-house proceedings for imposing penalties deprive companies of the right to a jury trial under the US constitution. The Trump administration defended the FCC’s approach to financial penalties. known as forfeiture orders. arguing that the agency’s internal process does not prevent companies from bringing legal challenges to the FCC’s assessments.
Roberts’ ruling embraced that view. The court concluded that the FCC’s in-house system does not foreclose parties from taking their fight to court after the agency assesses penalties.
The case fits into a broader legal shift over how federal agencies enforce rules. It was the latest courtroom test of whether an agency’s internal enforcement arrangement violates the constitutional right to a jury trial. The dispute followed the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision that curbed the power of in-house proceedings at the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The FCC’s fines at issue came from customer-data allegations. The agency fined AT&T $57m and Verizon nearly $47m after concluding the companies had unlawfully sold access to customer location data to third parties without securing consent from users.
Those penalties were part of a wider package: the FCC imposed nearly $200m in fines on carriers it said failed to safeguard customer data. T-Mobile received $80m, and Sprint—acquired by T-Mobile in 2020—was fined $12m.
For AT&T and Verizon, the fight did not end with paying. Both paid the fines they were assessed, but then pursued legal challenges. Those cases contributed to a split among regional US appellate courts over whether the FCC’s in-house procedure for imposing penalties was lawful.
In court. the government defended the FCC’s forfeiture process by arguing that the agency’s assessments were not binding in the way companies described. Department lawyers said that if the government brought an enforcement action in court. it would allow the companies to make their case before a jury.
The companies pushed back on that framing. They argued the FCC’s system impermissibly uses in-house proceedings for what belongs in court. depriving them of their right to a jury trial. They also said the FCC’s initial assessments inflict reputational harm before the accused have had their day in court.
The sequence of decisions matters for the carriers and for how consumers’ data is handled in practice. The FCC’s view was that companies must be penalized for how they handled location information. The carriers’ view was that the constitution requires a jury when the government seeks to impose penalties.
With Thursday’s ruling. the Supreme Court’s answer is now written: the FCC’s internal forfeiture proceedings can proceed. at least under the constitutional framework the court applied in this case. For AT&T. Verizon. and the other carriers that have already faced FCC fines over data access. the immediate consequence is a higher hurdle to overturning not just the penalties themselves. but the process used to impose them.
US Supreme Court FCC forfeiture orders AT&T Verizon jury trial right wireless carriers location data fines Trump administration John Roberts Clarence Thomas