The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday significantly reinforced the FCC’s ability to issue civil forfeitures without a jury trial, ruling 8-1 that the agency’s process does not violate the Seventh Amendment.
In doing so, however, the Court emphasized that FCC forfeiture orders do not create definitive legal obligations to pay and that the agency’s factual findings are not conclusive in court — a point that undercuts the binding weight regulators have historically placed on such penalties.
The decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts in the consolidated cases FCC v. AT&T and a related Verizon matter, reverses a Fifth Circuit ruling and sides with the FCC. It allows the agency to continue issuing multimillion-dollar forfeitures — including nearly $200 million combined against AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile for alleged customer data privacy violations — through its administrative proceedings.
Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter. The ruling delivers a practical victory for the FCC by preserving its primary enforcement tool against large telecommunications carriers. However, the Court’s explicit clarification that these orders are non-binding and non-conclusive could make it harder for the agency to pressure companies into quick settlements or treat its findings as final. Companies can more confidently challenge both the facts and the law in court if the DOJ pursues collection.
\This outcome comes in the wake of the Court’s 2024 decision in SEC v. Jarkesy, which limited certain agency penalty powers and raised similar Seventh Amendment concerns. Unlike that case, the FCC’s two-step process — administrative finding followed by optional judicial enforcement — was deemed constitutional.