US Supreme Court to review FCC’s authority to fine mobile carriers

The U.S. Supreme Court has decided to review a case involving fines imposed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on major U.S. wireless carriers for sharing customer location data without consent. This case is the latest to challenge the authority of a U.S. regulatory agency and questions whether the FCC overreached in imposing penalties on carriers like Verizon Communications and AT&T before giving them a chance to defend themselves in court.

This legal battle focuses on whether the FCC’s pursuit of millions of dollars in fines against these carriers exceeded the agency’s constitutional powers. The justices are expected to listen to arguments and deliver a ruling by the end of June. The core issue lies in whether a federal agency’s enforcement scheme infringes upon a defendant’s right to a jury trial as guaranteed by the Constitution.

The case originated from fines totaling nearly $200 million that the FCC levied against leading U.S. wireless carriers in 2024 for selling customer location data to third parties without obtaining proper consent. T-Mobile faced an $80 million fine, Sprint (acquired by T-Mobile in 2020) was fined $12 million, AT&T was penalized $57 million, and Verizon Communications had to pay almost $47 million. These fines sparked legal challenges from the companies, resulting in conflicting decisions among federal appellate courts regarding the FCC’s internal enforcement processes.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld the FCC’s fine against Verizon, asserting that the agency’s initial penalty assessment was permissible as long as the accused party could contest the government’s actions in court. Meanwhile, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled differently in AT&T’s case, stating that the FCC’s imposition of fines deprived the company of its constitutional right to a jury trial, leading to an appeal to the Supreme Court.

With a conservative majority, the Supreme Court has recently approached federal agency powers cautiously. In a significant 2024 decision, the court declared the Securities and Exchange Commission’s in-house enforcement of securities fraud laws unconstitutional. The 6-3 ruling emphasized that agency proceedings for fraud penalties should take place in federal court, not internally. However, in 2025, the Supreme Court supported the FCC’s funding mechanism for expanding phone and internet access to low-income Americans and other beneficiaries in a 6-3 decision.

The outcome of the current case will have implications for the balance of power between federal agencies and the constitutional rights of defendants. It remains to be seen how the Supreme Court’s conservative majority will interpret the FCC’s actions and determine the limits of its authority in enforcing telecommunications regulations. The final ruling, expected by mid-2026, will provide clarity on the extent to which federal agencies can penalize carriers for violations and the judicial processes that must be followed in such cases.