Supreme Court Upholds FCC Fine Powers

WASHINGTON, June 4, 2026 – The Supreme Court Thursday upheld 8-1 the Federal Communications Commission’s authority to issue fines when companies violate its rules.

The court rejected AT&T and Verizon’s argument that the agency’s process of issuing forfeiture orders without a jury trial was unconstitutional in light of recent Supreme Court precedent in SEC v. Jarkesy.

See Breakfast Club Membership Options!

                        See Breakfast Club Membership Options
                    

“The carriers contend that the FCC’s forfeiture proceedings violate the Seventh Amendment. We disagree,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. The agency orders, he wrote, “do not definitively resolve the parties’ legal obligations. 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.”

The agency’s process allows fined companies to wait for a Department of Justice collection action, which involves a jury, before they’re forced to pay. Companies can also pay voluntarily, which most companies do, and which grants the ability to challenge the decision before an appellate court.

At least that’s how companies and the FCC have been operating, but Roberts said it wasn’t clear payment was necessary for a legal appeal.

“The parties have litigated this case on the premise that a regulated entity must first pay the forfeiture before it may obtain review in the court of appeals,” he wrote in a footnote. “We express no view on whether that premise is a sound one.”

The decision is significant for the FCC, which told the court that fines were its most important enforcement mechanism, and that many of its consumer protection rules would be effectively nullified if the agency’s fining power were struck down.

Peter Hyun , who was deputy chief of the FCC’s enforcement bureau when Jarkesy came down, said in an interview the decision should solidify the agency’s enforcement authority.

“Those negotiating against FCC enforcers raised those cases — Jarkesy , the subsequent Fifth Circuit AT&T decision — to tell the FCC basically to pound sand,” he said

Now, he said, the Supreme Court’s decision “puts the FCC enforcers in the driver's seat in those same exact discussions and negotiations.”

Jarkesy , which found the Securities and Exchange Commission needed to provide fined entities a jury trial, was issued in June 2024, after the carriers’ fines were handed down in April of that year. The FCC found the three major mobile carriers did not properly vet third parties before selling them customer location data and issued more than $200 million in total fines against them.

Roberts wrote that Jarkesy was a poor analogy to the FCC’s case because SEC fines involved no jury anywhere in the process, and the agency could actively garnish wages or tax returns based only on its decisionmaking.

The carriers had also said the FCC could punish companies for non-payment in future proceedings, and that they suffered reputational harm before exercising their jury trial right, each of which amounted to an improper barrier. Roberts didn’t buy either.

He agreed with the FCC’s argument that the Communications Act prevents the agency from holding unpaid fines against companies. The underlying facts of a rule violation could be relevant in future proceedings, but the company would have another opportunity there to contest them, he wrote, which passed muster.

The carriers’ attorney, former Acting Solicitor General Jeff Wall , had asked justices to confirm that prohibition in their opinion if they sided against the companies. The carriers said they feared being punished for unpaid fines and the FCC insisted it doesn’t do that.

Wall also asked for a refund, which Roberts did not grant.

“The carriers also argue that the specific forfeiture orders in this case misled them into paying, and that a refund is therefore appropriate,” Roberts wrote. “We express no view on the merits of this argument, what relief may be available to the carriers, or in what proceeding.”

In an emailed statement to Broadband Breakfast, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said "I welcome today's Supreme Court win for the FCC. Congress has charged the FCC with enforcing the Communications Act and agency rules, and we will continue to hold companies accountable."

AT&T did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

John Bergmayer , legal director at consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge, which filed an amicus brief supporting the FCC, said in a statement that “This decision keeps the FCC able to do the job Congress gave it. An agency that cannot investigate carriers and propose penalties would lose one of its best tools for protecting consumers and enforcing the law.”

Hyun said that while the decision was on balance positive for the FCC, it would be interesting to see how recipients of forfeiture orders might view the documents after the Supreme Court confirmed there was no immediate obligation to pay.

“It seems like you’ve won on the law going forward, one way or the other,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said to Wall during oral arguments.

Kanavaugh joined Roberts’ opinion. The lone dissent came from fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas , who said he would have sided with the carriers.

Update: This story was updated to include a response from the FCC.