Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 9 Jan 2026

The Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq., empowers the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to assess monetary forfeiture penalties for certain violations of the Act or the FCC's regulations by issuing a notice of apparent liability, giving the regulated party an opportunity to respond in writing, and then issuing a final decision. If the regulated party declines to pay and the government sues to collect the penalties, the regulated party is entitled to a de novo jury trial in a federal district court. Alternatively, the subject of an FCC forfeiture order may pay the monetary penalty and file a petition for review in a court of appeals, thereby triggering a judicial-review proceeding in which no jury is available. The question presented is as follows: Whether the Communications Act provisions that govern the FCC's assessment and enforcement of monetary forfeitures are consistent with the Seventh Amendment and Article III.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The case concerned whether the FCC can issue forfeiture orders for communications-law violations without first providing a jury trial. The Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, held that this does not violate the Seventh Amendment. It reasoned that the FCC’s § 503(b)(4) orders do not finally determine a party’s legal obligation to pay, because the agency cannot collect on the order unless the Government later brings a de novo enforcement suit under § 504. The Court also said the agency’s factual findings are not conclusive in that later suit, so a jury gets the final word before payment can be compelled. The Court rejected arguments that the orders’ legal consequences, reputational harms, or the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine require a jury at the agency stage. It reversed in No. 25-406 and affirmed in No. 25-567.

Dissent summary

Etalia.ai summary of the dissenting opinions

Justice Thomas dissented. He argued that the FCC had already adjudicated liability and ordered AT&T and Verizon to pay large monetary penalties, and that the companies were forced to pay under protest rather than receive the constitutionally required jury trial de novo in an Article III court. He said the Court was accepting the Government’s new view that the orders were nonbinding, but that this did not match what happened in these cases. In his view, because the cases were brought from orders that were treated as binding at the time, the parties should have been given relief or at least an opportunity to proceed under the correct understanding of the law.