FCC v. AT&T
- Docket Number
- 25-406
- Citation
- 608/2
- Term
- October Term 2025
- Argued
- April 21, 2026
- Decided
- June 4, 2026
- Lower Court
- United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- Author
- Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.
- Concurring
- John G. Roberts, Jr., Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Ketanji Brown Jackson
- Dissenting
- Clarence Thomas
Read the official slip opinion (PDF)
AI-Generated Summary
Case Information:
- Case Name: Federal Communications Commission, et al. v. AT&T, Inc. (consolidated with Verizon Communications, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, et al.)
- Docket Number: Nos. 25–406 and 25–567
- Dates: Argued April 21, 2026—Decided June 4, 2026
- Lower Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (No. 25–406); United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (No. 25–567)
Facts of the Case: The FCC investigated cellular carriers AT&T and Verizon for suspected violations of laws requiring reasonable steps to protect customer location data confidentiality. The Commission issued notices of apparent liability under 47 U.S.C. §503(b)(4), followed by forfeiture orders assessing penalties of approximately $57 million against AT&T and $47 million against Verizon. The carriers paid the penalties and petitioned for review, claiming the absence of a jury trial violated the Seventh Amendment. The Fifth Circuit vacated the order against AT&T; the Second Circuit upheld the order against Verizon. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the conflict.
Legal Issues Presented: Whether forfeiture orders issued under §503(b)(4) without jury involvement violate the Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury in suits at common law. The case involves interpretation of the Seventh Amendment in conjunction with the Communications Act’s enforcement scheme.
The Court's Decision (Main Opinion):
- Author & Type: Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court (Majority opinion, joined by Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson, JJ.).
- Holding: Forfeiture orders under §503(b)(4) do not violate the Seventh Amendment because they do not definitively resolve legal obligations or render factual findings conclusive.
- Legal Reasoning: The Seventh Amendment requires a jury only for the ultimate determination of facts before legal rights are conclusively ascertained. The orders create no immediate payment obligation, impose no penalties for nonpayment, and trigger no adverse consequences under §504(c) unless payment occurs or a court orders it. Any collection requires a §504 civil suit featuring a trial de novo, in which the jury makes the final factual (and legal) determinations as if the Commission’s findings never existed. This structure aligns with precedents such as Meeker v. Lehigh Valley R. Co. and Ex parte Peterson, which permit nonjury preliminary fact-finding subject to de novo jury review.
- Disposition: Reversed and remanded (No. 25–406); affirmed (No. 25–567).
Concurring Opinion(s): None.
Dissenting Opinion(s): Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. He argued that the orders were presented as mandatory and that the carriers paid under protest while preserving their constitutional objections; therefore, they should receive relief rather than be denied recovery based on the Commission’s later characterization of the orders as nonbinding.
Potential Significance: The decision establishes that the Commission’s administrative forfeiture orders function as preliminary steps that do not trigger Seventh Amendment protections, provided a full de novo jury trial remains available in any subsequent enforcement action.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Key terms: Fcc Penalties, Location Data Privacy, Jury Trial Rights