Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, Inc.
What is the scope of the FCC's authority to regulate telecommunications carriers, and did the Fifth Circuit correctly limit the agency's regulatory power?
The Decision
Alito
·
Sotomayor
·
Kagan
·
Gorsuch
·
Kavanaugh
·
Barrett
·
Jackson
·
Decided June 4, 2026
Majority Opinion— Justice Roberts
The Supreme Court held that the FCC does not violate the Seventh Amendment's right to a jury trial when it issues forfeiture orders against companies without involving a jury. The case arose after the FCC fined AT&T roughly $57 million and Verizon roughly $47 million for mishandling customer location data. The carriers argued they were entitled to a jury trial before being required to pay. The Court, in an 8-1 decision by Chief Justice Roberts, concluded that FCC forfeiture orders do not actually settle the parties' legal obligations or make final determinations of fact. The orders do not create a binding obligation to pay — the FCC cannot seize assets, impose penalties for nonpayment, or even hold the existence of an unpaid order against a company in other proceedings.
The Court emphasized that if a company refuses to pay, the only way the government can collect is by having the Department of Justice file a lawsuit in federal court, where the case would be tried from scratch before a jury in a "trial de novo." This means the jury, not the FCC, would have the final say on both the facts and the law. The Court distinguished this from the SEC's enforcement process struck down in SEC v. Jarkesy (2024), where the agency's penalties were immediately enforceable and no jury trial was available even in court. The Court also rejected the carriers' argument that the threat of reputational harm or practical pressure to pay amounted to an unconstitutional condition on their jury trial right, finding that such incidental pressures do not rise to the level of coercion that would violate the Constitution. The Fifth Circuit's ruling in AT&T's favor was reversed, and the Second Circuit's ruling against Verizon was affirmed.
Dissenting Opinions
Justice Thomas
Justice Thomas dissented, arguing that the Court's decision effectively punishes AT&T and Verizon for doing exactly what responsible parties should do — paying the government's orders under protest and then challenging them in court. He pointed out that when the FCC issued its orders in 2024, the agency explicitly told the carriers that its penalties were binding and enforceable without any Article III court involvement, and that the orders themselves commanded payment within 30 days. The carriers had no realistic expectation of receiving the kind of full jury trial de novo that the majority now says was available to them, because courts across the country had routinely denied such trials in FCC enforcement actions.
Justice Thomas agreed with the majority's legal framework — that the Constitution requires a jury trial de novo before penalties can be collected — but argued the Court should have provided relief to AT&T and Verizon rather than simply announcing the rule for future cases. He emphasized that the carriers paid over $100 million based on the FCC's representation that its orders were mandatory and that no jury trial was required. The Government only changed its position years later during litigation. In Thomas's view, the Court should have given the parties an opportunity to proceed under the correct understanding of the law, rather than leaving them with no remedy after they had diligently preserved their constitutional objections.
Oral Argument Recording
Via Spotify ↗
Background & Facts
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued regulations affecting how telecommunications carriers like AT&T and Verizon operate. AT&T and Verizon challenged these regulations in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, arguing that the FCC exceeded its statutory authority. The Fifth Circuit, in a decision issued August 22, 2025, ruled in favor of AT&T and Verizon, striking down or limiting the FCC's regulations. The FCC then petitioned the Supreme Court for review, and the case was consolidated with a related case (No. 25-567) for briefing and oral argument.
This consolidated case presents fundamental questions about the proper scope of regulatory authority granted to federal agencies under telecommunications law. The lower court's decision appears to have restricted how the FCC can implement its statutory mandate, prompting the government to seek Supreme Court review of that limitation.
Why This Case Matters
This case could significantly impact telecommunications regulation and the balance of power between federal agencies and the courts. If the Supreme Court affirms the Fifth Circuit's narrow interpretation of FCC authority, it may limit the agency's ability to adapt its regulations to new technologies and market conditions. Conversely, if the Court reverses, it would reaffirm broader FCC authority and potentially signal support for flexible agency regulation in other industries. The decision will affect not only how AT&T, Verizon, and other carriers operate, but also the broader question of how much deference courts should give to agency interpretations of their own statutory powers.
The consolidation of this case with another related case (No. 25-567) suggests that multiple carriers and perhaps other stakeholders challenged overlapping FCC regulations, making this a high-stakes dispute with industry-wide implications.
The Arguments
The FCC possessed statutory authority to issue the challenged regulations, and the Fifth Circuit improperly restricted the agency's delegated power. The Court should reverse and recognize that the FCC's interpretation of its regulatory mandate is entitled to deference as a reasonable exercise of agency discretion.
- The FCC's statutory authority under telecommunications law encompasses the regulatory power exercised
- Agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes merit judicial deference under established administrative law principles
- The Fifth Circuit's decision creates regulatory uncertainty and limits the FCC's ability to govern the telecommunications industry effectively
- The lower court's narrow reading of FCC authority is inconsistent with the scope of powers delegated by Congress
The FCC regulations at issue exceed the agency's statutory authority and violate the Administrative Procedure Act. The Fifth Circuit correctly identified the limits of the FCC's delegated power, and the Supreme Court should affirm, holding that regulatory authority must remain within the boundaries Congress established.
- The FCC exceeded its statutory mandate by regulating conduct or entities outside its delegated scope
- The regulations were arbitrary and capricious or violated procedural requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act
- Carriers are entitled to clear statutory authorization before bearing compliance burdens imposed by agency regulation
- The Fifth Circuit's decision properly cabins agency power within constitutionally sound limits on delegation
Precedent Cases Cited
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
467 U.S. 837
This seminal case establishes the standard of judicial review for agency interpretations of statutes they administer, which is central to whether the FCC's interpretation of its regulatory authority is entitled to deference.
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
603 U.S. 588
This recent decision overruled Chevron deference and fundamentally changed how courts review agency interpretations, likely affecting the standard applicable to the FCC's regulatory authority claims.
Telecommunications Act of 1996
47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.
This foundational statute grants the FCC its regulatory authority over telecommunications carriers and services, making its scope a central issue in determining whether the FCC's regulations were authorized.
Administrative Procedure Act
5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq.
The APA establishes procedural requirements for agency rulemaking and provides the standard for 'arbitrary and capricious' review, which AT&T and Verizon likely invoked in challenging the FCC's actions.
Mead Corporation v. United States
533 U.S. 218
This case refines the scope of Chevron deference by requiring that an agency interpretation receive deference only if the agency was delegated authority to make rules with the force of law.
Brand X Internet Services v. Federal Communications Commission
545 U.S. 967
This case involved FCC regulatory authority over broadband internet services and the scope of the agency's power under the Communications Act, presenting similar jurisdictional questions.
Legal Terminology
Analysis & Opinions
The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 against AT&T and Verizon, holding that the FCC's process for imposing sanctions for telecommunications law violations does not violate the right to a jury trial. Only Justice Thomas dissented from the decision upholding the constitutionality of the FCC's administrative enforcement proceedings.
The Supreme Court upheld the FCC's power to levy fines against cellphone carriers, rejecting arguments by AT&T and Verizon that they were deprived of their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial when the agency penalized them for failing to protect consumer information.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case challenging the constitutionality of FCC fines imposed on AT&T and Verizon, with the justices appearing skeptical of the carriers' claim that they have a right to a jury trial in FCC enforcement proceedings. The case tests whether administrative penalty proceedings violate the Seventh Amendment.
The Supreme Court appeared likely to uphold FCC fines totaling millions of dollars against AT&T and Verizon for allegedly failing to protect consumer information. The telecommunications companies argued they were deprived of their constitutional right to a jury trial by having penalties imposed through an administrative proceeding.
The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on whether the Seventh Amendment's right to a jury trial applies in FCC enforcement proceedings that seek monetary penalties. The case examines the boundary between legal remedies that require a jury and administrative proceedings that do not.