AT&T and Verizon Argue Against FCC Forfeiture Process in Supreme Court

AT&T and Verizon have taken their fight against the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) fine issuance process to the Supreme Court. The FCC, along with the two carriers challenging penalties imposed on them, have requested that the Supreme Court resolve a split in the circuit regarding this issue. The oral arguments in the case are scheduled for April 21, 2026.

In a joint brief, AT&T and Verizon emphasized that defendants are entitled to present their case to a jury before the FCC issues final and binding forfeiture orders against them. They argue that the Seventh Amendment grants them the right to a jury trial before paying any fines. The recent Supreme Court decision in SEC v. Jarkesy supports their position, stating that entities facing civil fines from the Securities and Exchange Commission should have the opportunity for a jury trial before payment.

The process established by the FCC allows fined entities a jury trial only if they refuse to pay and wait for the Justice Department to potentially initiate a collection action. AT&T and Verizon refute this, stating that companies should have a jury trial before the FCC issues forfeiture orders. They argue that the DOJ suit resulting from non-payment is entirely separate from an FCC forfeiture order, emphasizing their right to plead their case to a jury.

Both companies were fined in 2024 for failing to adequately vet third parties before selling customer location data. They appealed the fines, arguing for the opportunity for a jury trial before paying any penalties. The Fifth Circuit supported AT&T, while the D.C. Circuit and Second Circuit sided with the FCC. Fines are a crucial enforcement mechanism for the FCC, and the outcome of this case will significantly impact the agency’s ability to enforce its rules.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr opposed the fines but continues to defend the agency’s authority to levy fines. The agency maintains that its process aligns with the SEC v. Jarkesy ruling, as companies are not required to pay until the DOJ brings a suit. Verizon and AT&T argue that the option of waiting for the DOJ to act poses a barrier to companies exercising their rights and comes with substantial reputational harm and potential penalties for non-payment.

Verizon and AT&T assert that not paying and waiting for a DOJ suit deprives carriers of their right to judicial review and places the outcome solely in the hands of the DOJ. Companies typically pay fines to retain their ability to challenge the agency’s decision. Both companies are represented by Sullivan & Cromwell Partner Jeffrey Wall, who has extensive experience in high-profile legal matters.

In conclusion, AT&T and Verizon are championing their right to a jury trial before the FCC issues forfeiture orders and are pushing back against the FCC’s fine enforcement process. The outcome of this case will have far-reaching implications for both carriers and the FCC’s enforcement mechanisms.