The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday, April 21, 2026, in a consolidated legal challenge brought by AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The telecommunications companies are contesting more than $100 million in regulatory penalties, arguing that the agency’s administrative process for issuing fines violates the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.
The dispute originates from a series of forfeiture orders issued by the FCC in April 2024. Following an investigation into the unauthorized sharing of Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI), the commission assessed penalties of $57 million against AT&T and $46.9 million against Verizon. The FCC alleged that the carriers failed to implement sufficient safeguards when selling access to customer location data to third-party aggregators, which in turn sold the data to entities such as bail bondsmen and private investigators. While T-Mobile and Sprint were also fined in the initial 2024 action, the current Supreme Court case focuses on the appeals led by AT&T and Verizon.
The carriers’ legal challenge, consolidated as FCC v. AT&T (No. 25-406) and Verizon v. FCC (No. 25-567), relies heavily on the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in SEC v. Jarkesy. In that case, the Court ruled that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s use of in-house administrative proceedings to impose civil penalties for fraud was unconstitutional. AT&T and Verizon argue that the FCC’s enforcement mechanism similarly acts as prosecutor, jury, and judge, issuing binding orders that can negatively impact license renewals and business operations before a defendant ever reaches a courtroom.
During the proceedings, Jeffrey B. Wall, representing the carriers, argued that the FCC’s orders are not merely administrative notices but represent final agency actions that demand payment by a specific deadline. Conversely, the Department of Justice, representing the FCC, argued that the forfeiture orders do not create an immediate legal obligation to pay. The government maintained that if a carrier chooses not to pay, the fine can only be collected through a subsequent enforcement action in federal court, where a jury trial is available.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh observed that the government’s position on the non-binding nature of the orders might provide the carriers with the legal clarity they seek regarding the timing of payments. However, Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the severity of the immediate harm alleged by the companies, suggesting that the carriers’ objections might stem more from a reputational concern than a constitutional violation. The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling will resolve a circuit split between the Fifth Circuit, which vacated the AT&T fine, and the Second and D.C. Circuits, which upheld the penalties. A decision is expected by the end of the term in June 2026.