The case at the top of the Supreme Court’s spring schedule has an almost antiquated feel to it. AT&T and Verizon, two of the largest telecom corporations in the nation, are at odds with the Federal Communications Commission over a procedure that, in essence, dates back to the 1934 law that established the agency.
The amount of money is substantial. Fines of over $100 million are at stake. However, the debate is really about something more subdued and awkward: whether a government agency can determine that you owe money before a jury ever hears your side of the story.
| Category | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Names | FCC v. AT&T & Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court (consolidated) |
| Oral Arguments Heard | April 21, 2026 |
| Expected Ruling | Late June or early July 2026 |
| Companies Involved | AT&T Inc.; Verizon Communications Inc. |
| Regulator | Federal Communications Commission |
| AT&T Fine | $57 million |
| Verizon Fine | $46.9 million |
| Combined Penalties | Over $100 million |
| Underlying Issue | Sale of customer location data to third parties |
| Constitutional Question | Whether the FCC’s two-stage civil-enforcement scheme violates the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial |
| Lower Court Split | 5th Circuit sided with AT&T; 2nd Circuit sided with FCC |
| Key Precedent | SEC v. Jarkesy (2024) |
| Statute at Issue | Communications Act of 1934, § 504(a) |
| Counsel for Carriers | Jeffrey Wall |
| Counsel for Government | Vivek Suri (DOJ) |
All three of the major U.S. wireless carriers were accused by the FCC in 2024 of improperly protecting user location data, including data that was later sold to bounty hunters and other third parties. This led to the start of the dispute. A $57 million forfeiture order was imposed on AT&T. Verizon paid about $47 million for one.
Instead of silently bearing the expense, the carriers retaliated, claiming that the enforcement system as a whole violates the Seventh Amendment as they were never given the opportunity to present their case to a jury before the agency found them guilty. Sitting in New Orleans, the Fifth Circuit concurred with AT&T. The FCC was supported by the Second Circuit in New York when it came to Verizon. A clear circuit division that was practically designed for the Supreme Court to resolve.
The case is also taking place in the long shadow of SEC v. Jarkesy, which was decided only two years ago. In that case, the justices determined that the right to a jury trial was violated by the Securities and Exchange Commission’s internal penalty system. The telecom companies view Jarkesy as a model that should undermine the FCC’s procedure. In response, the agency claims that one crucial aspect of its setup differs.
A firm that has been fined may choose to simply refuse to pay under Section 504(a) of the Communications Act. The FCC claims that the forfeiture order is not legally enforceable. The government must request that the Justice Department file a collection lawsuit in federal court if it wants the money, at which point the business will have a complete and de novo jury trial.
In this case, that differentiation might end up doing all the work. The judges appeared surprisingly indifferent to the carriers during oral arguments on April 21. Chief Justice Roberts and a number of other judges questioned whether the firms were genuinely denied a jury or if they were merely attempting to avoid the negative publicity that would result from their refusal to pay. It was likened by Justice Barrett to a plea deal.
Although Justice Kavanaugh expressed concern about the FCC’s wording of its orders, he also stated that the Seventh Amendment might be met if a genuine de novo jury trial is still pending. Reading the transcripts gives the impression that the carriers expected Jarkesy to do more work for them than it really did when they entered the courtroom.
It’s difficult to ignore the larger picture. Even though the Supreme Court has been limiting the authority of government agencies for years, there may be a respite at this point. Particularly when the underlying behavior involves selling your location to the buyer, AT&T and Verizon are not very sympathetic plaintiffs. By late June or early July, a decision is anticipated. Regardless of the outcome, every federal agency that has the authority to impose fines will read the opinion that same morning and consider its implications.
