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.

Awọn iroyin ti o ni ibatan

Dramatic illustration of Justice Sotomayor dissenting outside the Supreme Court, overlaid with the wrongful arrest of journalist Priscilla Villarreal, underscoring First Amendment concerns.
Àwòrán tí AI ṣe

Sotomayor dissents as Supreme Court declines to hear Texas journalist’s wrongful-arrest appeal

Ti AI ṣe iroyin Àwòrán tí AI ṣe Ti ṣayẹwo fun ododo

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal by Texas citizen journalist Priscilla Villarreal, leaving in place a divided ruling that she cannot sue local officials over her 2017 arrest for obtaining nonpublic information from police. Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a lone dissent, calling the arrest an obvious First Amendment violation.

US Supreme Court justices on Monday expressed doubt about AT&T and Verizon's argument that the Federal Communications Commission's fine procedures violate their right to a jury trial. The carriers, fined $104 million for sharing users' location data without consent, paid the penalties before challenging them. Justices and FCC lawyers agreed the fines are nonbinding without court enforcement.

Ti AI ṣe iroyin

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 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.

Ti AI ṣe iroyin

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear Apple's appeal in its long-running legal battle with Epic Games. The decision upholds a lower court finding that Apple violated an injunction by limiting third-party payment options on iOS devices.

Ojú-ìwé yìí nlo kuki

A nlo kuki fun itupalẹ lati mu ilọsiwaju wa. Ka ìlànà àṣírí wa fun alaye siwaju sii.
Kọ