Supreme Court takes case on FCC's authority to issue fines

The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could limit the Federal Communications Commission's power to impose fines on telecom companies. The dispute stems from 2024 penalties totaling $196 million against AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile for selling customer location data without consent. Carriers argue the process violates their right to a jury trial, citing a recent securities ruling.

In a move that could reshape regulatory enforcement in telecommunications, the Supreme Court on Friday granted petitions from Verizon and the federal government, consolidating challenges related to FCC fines. The cases arise from actions taken in 2024, when the FCC imposed $196 million in penalties on the major carriers for sharing customer location information without consent, a practice first exposed in 2018. The commission stated the companies failed to protect against unauthorized disclosure.

AT&T successfully overturned its fine in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that the FCC had acted as "prosecutor, jury, and judge," breaching the Seventh Amendment. In contrast, Verizon's appeal failed in the 2nd Circuit, and T-Mobile's in the District of Columbia Circuit. Those courts held that carriers could secure a jury trial by refusing payment, prompting the Justice Department to sue for collection.

The carriers draw on the Supreme Court's June 2024 decision in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, which struck down a similar SEC penalty system for lacking jury trial protections. Verizon's petition questions whether the Communications Act violates the Seventh Amendment and Article III by allowing FCC monetary penalties without guaranteed jury trials. It argues that paying the fine leads to deferential appellate review under the Administrative Procedure Act, while refusal risks reputational harm and an uncertain DOJ lawsuit.

The Trump administration supports the FCC's process, citing precedents like a 1899 Supreme Court ruling that permits jury trials on appeal and a 1915 case upholding agency liability decisions subject to judicial review. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, who opposed the fines on authority grounds, now defends the agency's legal mechanisms. A ruling could impact T-Mobile's ongoing rehearing bid, potentially altering how the FCC enforces communications law.

Related Articles

Senate hearing where Republican senators grill telecom lawyers over Jack Smith subpoenas for GOP phone records.
Image generated by AI

Senate Judiciary subcommittee grills telecom firms over compliance with Jack Smith subpoenas for GOP lawmakers’ phone records

Reported by AI Image generated by AI Fact checked

Republican senators pressed lawyers for Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile at a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing Tuesday over the companies’ handling of subpoenas from special counsel Jack Smith’s office seeking phone toll records connected to congressional Republicans during the Justice Department’s 2020 election interference investigation.

Wireless carriers and industry groups have urged the FCC to abandon a proposal allowing prisons to jam contraband cell phones, arguing it would disrupt emergency and lawful communications. The plan, proposed by Chairman Brendan Carr in September 2025, has support from Republican attorneys general and prison phone providers but faces strong opposition over technical limitations. Public comments closed in late December 2025, leaving the FCC to consider next steps.

Reported by AI Fact checked

The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment on December 1, 2025, a case that asks when internet service providers can be held contributorily liable for failing to curb repeat copyright infringement by their subscribers.

Apple is seeking to appeal a $2 billion antitrust fine imposed by a UK court over its App Store practices. The company aims to take the case to the UK's Court of Appeal after the Competition Appeal Tribunal rejected its initial appeal request. The ruling found Apple guilty of anticompetitive behavior in charging high fees to developers.

Reported by AI

Proton has cautioned that major tech companies like Google, Amazon, and Apple could cover over $7 billion in fines imposed in 2025 within less than a month. The firm highlights how these giants view such penalties as a simple cost of doing business. This assessment underscores the financial resilience of Big Tech amid regulatory pressures.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Friday that President Trump cannot use the International Economic Emergency Powers Act to impose broad-scale tariffs, prompting immediate responses from the administration and political figures. Trump signed a 15% global tariff under a different law the next day and criticized the court on Monday. The decision has sparked debates over its political implications ahead of the midterms and the State of the Union address.

Reported by AI

A split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed a decision upholding the validity of Charge Fusion Technologies' electric vehicle charging patent, rejecting Tesla's appeal. The ruling supports the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's finding that Tesla failed to prove the claims unpatentable. The patent is also at issue in a related infringement lawsuit against Tesla.

 

 

 

This website uses cookies

We use cookies for analytics to improve our site. Read our privacy policy for more information.
Decline