The U.S. Supreme Court on April 21 will consider whether the Federal Communications Commission’s power to levy large fines violates Verizon and AT&T’s constitutional right to a jury trial.
The cases of FCC v. AT&T and Verizon Communications v. FCC, which will be heard together, are about whether provisions in the federal Communications Act of 1934 allowing the FCC to use in-house adjudications to levy penalties are constitutional.
The dispute is the latest legal case to test whether the in-house enforcement system used by a federal agency violates the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in federal civil cases.
The cases come after the Supreme Court limited the Securities and Exchange Commission’s use of in-house administrative tribunals two years ago, finding that defendants facing civil penalties are entitled under the Seventh Amendment to a jury trial.
“A defendant facing a fraud suit has the right to be tried by a jury of his peers before a neutral adjudicator,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in SEC v. Jarkesy.
In the cases at hand, the FCC fined the two telecommunications companies for sharing customer location data with third parties without consent, a violation of the federal Telecommunications Act. The fines were issued before the companies had their day in court.
The cases arose after the FCC levied almost $200 million in fines against several wireless carriers. T-Mobile was ordered to pay $80 million, while Sprint, which T-Mobile purchased in 2020, had to pay $12 million. AT&T was required to pay $57 million, while Verizon was ordered to pay almost $47 million.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed Verizon’s penalty, finding the Constitution allows the FCC to carry out an initial penalty assessment, provided that an accused party is permitted to dispute the government’s collection efforts in court.
The Second Circuit held that device-location data are protected by statute, that the FCC reasonably determined Verizon’s liability, and that the forfeiture order that imposed the financial penalty “neither violates the applicable statutory limits nor Verizon’s asserted Seventh Amendment rights.”
The Fifth Circuit, on the other hand, found that the initial assessment and fine the FCC imposed on AT&T violated the company’s right to have a jury trial.
The Fifth Circuit said that AT&T argued that the in-house adjudication system ran afoul of the Constitution by denying it a duly appointed federal judge and a trial by jury.
“Guided by SEC v. Jarkesy, we agree with AT&T,” the circuit court said.
Verizon said in its Supreme Court petition that “the FCC scheme at issue here mirrors the SEC scheme rejected in Jarkesy in every material respect.”
The FCC said in a brief that the Second Circuit was correct to rule that the fine complies with the Seventh Amendment.
However, the FCC said it agreed with Verizon that the issues raised by the company deserved to be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
After the April 21 oral argument, a decision is expected by the end of June.
Sam Dorman contributed to this report.
This article by Matthew Vadum appeared April 21, 2026, in The Epoch Times.