Supreme Court Upholds FCC’s Power to Fine AT&T and Verizon
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 on June 4, 2026, in *FCC v. AT&T*, upholding the FCC’s authority to issue forfeiture findings against AT&T and Verizon without first going to court. The fines, totaling over $100 million, stemmed from the companies’ unlawful sale of customer location data. The Court rejected the carriers’ Seventh Amendment jury trial challenge, accepting the government’s argument that the forfeiture orders were not binding. Justice Thomas dissented. The ruling leaves unresolved whether the carriers are entitled to a refund.
Cross-source coverage
Wire timeline
Chief Justice Roberts Rules for FCC in AT&T and Verizon Forfeiture Case, Denies Refund
The article analyzes the Supreme Court decision in FCC v. AT&T, where Chief Justice Roberts authored a 'blue plate special' ruling. The FCC had assessed $104 million in forfeitures against AT&T and Verizon for alleged violations. The carriers paid under protest, arguing they were entitled to a de novo jury trial under the Seventh Amendment and Jarkesy precedent. On appeal, the government changed its position, claiming the forfeiture orders were voluntary. The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, agreed with the carriers on the law but ruled for the FCC, accepting the government's new argument that the orders were not binding. Justice Thomas dissented, arguing the Court should have decided the case as presented. The article criticizes the majority for not addressing whether the carriers should receive a refund for the $100 million already paid, highlighting Footnote 5 as the worst part of the opinion.
Reason.comSupreme Court Rules for FCC in AT&T and Verizon Forfeiture Case, Denies Refund
The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in FCC v. AT&T, siding with the FCC despite agreeing with AT&T and Verizon on the law. Chief Justice Roberts authored the opinion, finding that the FCC's forfeiture orders did not create a binding obligation to pay, thus the carriers' $100 million payment was voluntary. The carriers had argued they were entitled to a de novo jury trial under the Seventh Amendment and Jarkesy before being forced to pay. The government changed its position on appeal, claiming the forfeiture was voluntary. Justice Thomas dissented, arguing the Court should have resolved the case as presented. The decision leaves unresolved whether the carriers will receive a refund, a question the majority declined to address in Footnote 5.
Reason.comSupreme Court Rules for FCC in AT&T and Verizon Forfeiture Case, Denies Refund
The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision in FCC v. AT&T, ruled in favor of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) despite agreeing with AT&T and Verizon on the underlying legal principle. The carriers had paid $57 million and $47 million in forfeitures under protest, arguing they were entitled to a jury trial before an Article III court under the precedent set in Jarkesy. The Fifth Circuit had agreed with them. However, on appeal, the government changed its position, arguing the forfeiture orders were not binding and the payments were voluntary. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, accepted this new argument, ruling that the carriers had no obligation to pay and thus no constitutional violation occurred. Justice Thomas dissented, arguing the Court should have decided the case as it was presented. The opinion notably left unresolved the question of whether the carriers are entitled to a refund of the over $100 million they paid, a point highlighted in a critical footnote.
Reason.comSupreme Court upholds FCC’s fines against Verizon, AT&T
The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 on Thursday to reject Verizon and AT&T's constitutional challenge to massive fines imposed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion, holding that the companies are not entitled to a jury trial to contest the fines. The fines, which total more than $100 million combined, stem from the companies' use of customers' location data. The decision upholds the FCC's enforcement action against the two major telecommunications firms.
Just In NewsUS Supreme Court backs FCC in clash with wireless carriers over fines
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), rejecting a challenge by wireless carriers AT&T and Verizon. The carriers argued that the FCC's in-house system for levying fines, known as forfeiture orders, violated their constitutional right to a jury trial. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, stating that the FCC's orders do not definitively resolve legal obligations and that factual findings are not conclusive, thus not offending the Constitution. The ruling is a win for President Donald Trump's administration, which defended the FCC's system. The dispute stemmed from nearly $200 million in fines imposed on carriers, including $57 million on AT&T and $47 million on Verizon, for unlawfully selling customer location data to third parties without consent. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr welcomed the decision, vowing to continue holding companies accountable. The case follows a 2024 Supreme Court ruling that curbed in-house proceedings at the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Yahoo FinanceUS Supreme Court sides with FCC in clash with wireless carriers over fines
The US Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in a dispute with wireless carriers AT&T and Verizon over the agency's system for levying fines. The case centered on whether the FCC's in-house proceedings for imposing penalties violated the companies' constitutional right to a jury trial. The FCC had fined AT&T $57 million and Verizon nearly $47 million for unlawfully selling access to customer location data to third parties without user consent, part of nearly $200 million in total fines against carriers including T-Mobile and Sprint. The ruling resolved a split between the 2nd and 5th US Circuit Courts of Appeal, with the Supreme Court backing the FCC's system. The Trump administration defended the FCC's forfeiture orders, arguing the assessments are not binding and companies can later challenge them in court. The decision follows a 2024 Supreme Court ruling that curbed in-house proceedings at the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Yahoo FinanceSupreme Court sides with FCC power in forfeiture process
The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 on June 4, 2026, upholding the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) authority to issue forfeiture findings against companies for alleged law violations without first going to court. The decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, held that the FCC's forfeiture process does not violate the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial because enforcement requires a Justice Department lawsuit. The case stemmed from 2024 FCC forfeiture notices against AT&T and Verizon for data privacy violations, totaling over $100 million. The Court reversed a 5th Circuit ruling that had sided with the telecom giants, instead adopting the 2nd Circuit's reasoning. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing the government must obtain a court order before depriving anyone of property. The ruling cuts against recent conservative court trends limiting agency authority.
Roll Call