FCC v. AT&T
Decision
The Court ruled that the FCC’s process for issuing civil fines without a jury is constitutional because the fines cannot be collected until the government wins a new trial in front of a jury.
The Supreme Court upheld the FCC's ability to issue 'notices of apparent liability' and forfeiture orders for legal violations without using a jury.
Plain-English summary generated by AI from the Court's published opinion on June 19, 2026. Always read the official opinion for the controlling text.
Key Takeaways
- 01The Seventh Amendment right to a jury does not have to happen at the very beginning of a legal dispute.
- 02FCC forfeiture orders are considered 'preliminary' because the agency cannot actually force anyone to pay them.
- 03A 'trial de novo' is a complete restart where a jury hears the evidence as if the agency's previous findings never happened.
Inside the Court
8–1
Decision
- Opinion by
- Justice Roberts
- Majority
- RobertsAlitoSotomayorKaganGorsuchKavanaughBarrettJackson
- Dissent
- Thomas
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies that government agencies can conduct internal investigations and assess penalties as long as the person or company has a right to a fresh trial with a jury before they are actually forced to pay.
Who Is Affected?
Telecommunications Companies
Companies must decide whether to pay FCC fines voluntarily or risk a public enforcement lawsuit in federal court.
Federal Regulatory Agencies
Agencies like the FCC can continue using internal investigations to pressure companies into compliance without immediate jury involvement.
What Happened?
The FCC investigated AT&T and Verizon for allegedly failing to protect customer location data. After an internal review, the FCC issued orders requiring the companies to pay millions of dollars in penalties. The companies sued, arguing that the Seventh Amendment required a jury to decide if they were liable and how much they should owe. Two lower courts disagreed on whether this process was legal, leading the Supreme Court to step in.
Legal Question
Does the FCC violate the Seventh Amendment by issuing forfeiture orders without a jury when those orders are not immediately enforceable and can be challenged in a new trial?
Why the Court Ruled This Way
In an 8-1 decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that the FCC’s forfeiture process does not violate the Seventh Amendment. The Court reasoned that the Seventh Amendment does not dictate at what stage a jury must be involved, only that a jury must have the 'ultimate determination' of facts before legal rights are conclusively settled. Because the FCC has no power to force payment or penalize a company for ignoring a forfeiture order without first winning a de novo trial—meaning a completely new trial—in federal court, the right to a jury is preserved. The Court distinguished this from other agency processes where penalties are immediately enforceable through wage garnishment or tax offsets.
Arguments in Favor
The FCC's process is a valid preliminary step that does not legally bind a party or force payment. Since a full jury trial is available before any money is actually taken, the constitutional right to a jury remains fully protected.
Arguments Against
Allowing an agency to officially 'determine' guilt and 'assess' massive fines without a jury creates significant reputational harm and practical pressure to settle. Critics argue the government should not be able to brand someone a lawbreaker through a formal order before proving its case to a jury.
Timeline
1934
The Communications Act was enacted, creating the FCC and its enforcement powers.
2018
News reports revealed security breaches regarding customer location data.
2024
The FCC issued final orders assessing penalties against AT&T and Verizon.
June 4, 2026
The Supreme Court issued its final decision upholding the FCC's process.
What This Means for Everyday Americans
For most people, this means the government can still use its experts to investigate and 'fine' companies that mishandle private data like your phone's location. However, those companies cannot be forced to pay until a jury of regular citizens agrees the company actually broke the law. This keeps the power to take a company's money in the hands of the court system rather than just government officials. It also ensures that the news of an investigation can stay public, even if the government hasn't won a trial yet.
What Happens Next?
The cases will return to the lower courts to address any remaining legal challenges the companies raised. AT&T and Verizon can now choose to stop their voluntary payments and force the government to prove its case in a brand-new jury trial.
Explain It Like I'm 12
Imagine a school principal says you broke a rule and tells you to pay a $5 fine. But the principal doesn't have the power to take your money. If you don't pay, the school has to take you to a real court and prove to a group of neighbors (a jury) that you actually did it. Only then would you have to pay. The Supreme Court said this is okay because even though the principal made a decision first, you still get your 'day in court' with a jury before any money is taken from you. In this case, the FCC is the principal, and the big phone companies are the students.
Broader Context
The ruling limits the reach of the Court’s previous decision in SEC v. Jarkesy by clarifying that agencies can still use internal processes if those processes are not 'immediately enforceable' against the individual.
Key Players
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
The federal agency that investigated the carriers and issued the penalty orders.
AT&T and Verizon
The cellular service providers who challenged the FCC's fine-collection process as unconstitutional.
Department of Justice (DOJ)
The government department responsible for bringing civil lawsuits to actually collect FCC fines.