Supreme Court sets date for arguments in FCC CPNI civil forfeiture cases

The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing for oral arguments on April 21, 2026, in two combined cases that could lead to significant changes in how and when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and potentially other federal agencies, can impose fines. The court’s ruling will establish if there are constraints on administrative enforcement authority and the imposition of financial penalties.

The Supreme Court accepted certiorari and merged two cases challenging the FCC’s ability to enforce civil forfeiture penalties through administrative channels under constitutional review: Verizon Commc’ns Inc. v. FCC, 156 F.4th 86 (2d Cir. 2025) and FCC v. AT&T, Inc., 149 F.4th 491 (5th Cir. 2025). This decision is anticipated to resolve disagreements between the Fifth Circuit, which invalidated fines on AT&T, and the Second and D.C. Circuits, which upheld penalties against two other carriers. These contradictions were based on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Securities & Exch. Comm’n v., 603 U.S. 109 (2024), where it was determined that a jury trial is required under the Seventh Amendment when the Securities Exchange Commission imposes civil penalties for securities fraud.

In 2024, the FCC issued civil forfeiture orders against various carriers, including AT&T and Verizon, after investigating the sharing of customer proprietary network information (CPNI). The penalties were in the tens of millions of dollars, which the carriers paid but later contested in multiple appellate courts, claiming that the FCC did not have the authority to impose these penalties as per Jarkesy’s standards.

The Fifth Circuit concluded that the FCC’s penalty process violated AT&T’s Seventh Amendment rights, while the Second and D.C. Circuits maintained that the FCC had the authority to impose financial penalties against other carriers. The Fifth Circuit argued that a trial under § 504(a) would not grant AT&T its Seventh Amendment right since the carrier could not challenge the FCC’s legal conclusions.

The Supreme Court’s acceptance of certiorari raises these issues to the forefront. The petitions seek a decision on whether the FCC can execute civil forfeitures administratively or if penalties must be determined in federal court with a jury trial. While these cases originated in the context of FCC CPNI rule violations, their implications extend beyond privacy regulation.

A ruling in favor of the Fifth Circuit’s decision could restrict the FCC’s ability to impose direct civil forfeitures, implying that such cases must be handed over to the Department of Justice for federal court prosecution. This could impact not only privacy enforcement but also the FCC’s broader enforcement of the Communications Act.

The outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision will likely affect other federal agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency, which also rely on similar frameworks to impose civil forfeiture penalties. A ruling that strengthens constitutional limits on administrative hearings could prompt agencies to reassess their enforcement methods.

The cases will undergo briefing this spring, with a decision expected before the end of the Court’s term in June. Regulated entities should closely follow these developments and consider how changes in enforcement authority could impact their compliance strategies and legal exposure. The Supreme Court’s review highlights the importance of the ongoing debate over administrative enforcement and is anticipated to provide clarity on the constitutional boundaries of agency enforcement authority.