Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 9 Jan 2026

Under the Communications Act of 1934, the Federal Communications Commission may assess monetary "forfeiture penalties" for violations of the Act, including the requirement that telecommunications carriers take reasonable measures to protect certain customer data. 47 U.S.C. §§ 222, 503, 504. The FCC may impose such forfeiture penalties in administrative proceedings. Id. § 503(b)(4). If a carrier wants to guarantee judicial review, it must pay the penalty and then seek review in a court of appeals, which reviews the agency's order on the administrative record under the deferential standards of the Administrative Procedure Act. 47 U.S.C. § 402(a); 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). If the carrier wants a jury trial, by contrast, it must defy the FCC's order and refuse to pay, after which the Department of Justice may, but is not required to, file a lawsuit in district court to collect the unpaid forfeiture. 47 U.S.C. § 504(a). While waiting for that DOJ lawsuit that might never come, the carrier suffers serious practical and reputational harms from the final FCC order. The question presented is: Whether the Communications Act violates the Seventh Amendment and Article III by authorizing the FCC to order the payment of monetary penalties for failing to reasonably safeguard customer data, without guaranteeing the defendant carrier a right to a jury trial.

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.