Facts of the Case
After 2018 news reports revealed that third-party providers were misusing customer location data AT&T shared through its location-based services program, the FCC investigated and in 2020 fined AT&T $57 million for violating Section 222 of the Communications Act, imposing the forfeiture through written agency proceedings without a hearing or trial. AT&T paid the fine and petitioned for review, and the Fifth Circuit vacated the forfeiture order, holding that the FCC's in-house enforcement process violated Article III and the Seventh Amendment.
Questions
Are provisions of the Communications Act of 1934 that govern the Federal Communications Commission's assessment and enforcement of monetary forfeitures consistent with the Seventh Amendment and Article III?
Conclusions
-
On June 4, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held 8-1 in Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, Inc. that the FCC may issue monetary forfeiture orders without a jury trial consistent with the Seventh Amendment, because such orders create no binding obligation to pay and the government can collect only through a de novo civil enforcement action in which a jury makes the final determination of liability.
From the Courthouse Steps: FCC v. AT&T
In FCC v. AT&T, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a jury trial is...
From the Courthouse Steps: FCC v. AT&T
In FCC v. AT&T, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a jury trial is...
FCC v. AT&T and Milner v. Department of the Navy - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
SCOTUScast 04-20-11 featuring Richard J. Peltz
On March 1, 2011, the Supreme Court announced its decision in FCC v. AT&T, a...
