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.

Articoli correlati

Senate hearing where Republican senators grill telecom lawyers over Jack Smith subpoenas for GOP phone records.
Immagine generata dall'IA

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

Riportato dall'IA Immagine generata dall'IA Verificato

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.

Riportato dall'IA

In a follow-up to its landmark Cox decision, the US Supreme Court has vacated a lower court ruling holding internet service provider Grande Communications liable for subscribers' copyright infringement and remanded it for reconsideration. The order, issued Monday, reinforces that ISPs face contributory liability only if they intend infringement, potentially benefiting other providers like Verizon.

The Federal Trade Commission has expanded its lawsuit against Uber by adding 21 states and the District of Columbia, accusing the company of deceptive practices related to its Uber One subscription service. The allegations include charging customers without consent and making cancellations overly complicated. Uber strongly denies the claims, asserting that its processes are straightforward and compliant with the law.

Riportato dall'IA

Lobby group Sheria Mtaani will not withdraw its High Court petition challenging the NTSA instant fines system, despite the authority's suspension of the programme. Lawyer Danstan Omari stated that NTSA has failed to address core legal issues in the rollout.

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that challenges to void judgments must be filed within a reasonable time. In Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton, the court rejected arguments for unlimited challenge periods. The ruling emphasizes the legal system's need for finality.

Riportato dall'IA Verificato

The U.S. Supreme Court on April 6 vacated a federal appeals court decision upholding Steve Bannon’s criminal contempt of Congress conviction and sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, a move that—at the Justice Department’s request—could allow the Trump administration to seek dismissal of the prosecution. Bannon previously served a four-month prison sentence for defying a subpoena from the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack.

 

 

 

Questo sito web utilizza i cookie

Utilizziamo i cookie per l'analisi per migliorare il nostro sito. Leggi la nostra politica sulla privacy per ulteriori informazioni.
Rifiuta