Docket 25-406
FCC v. AT&T
DecidedJun 4, 2026
8-1decision
Source: CourtListener.
FCC may issue forfeiture orders without a jury trial, as long as full jury trial remains available before payment is enforced
Impact6/10
What it does
The Court held that the FCC's forfeiture orders do not violate the Seventh Amendment because they do not create a binding legal obligation to pay — the government can only actually collect a penalty after winning a full, fresh jury trial in federal court. The FCC's internal factual findings carry no weight in that later trial, meaning the jury starts from scratch. Because the jury gets the final word before any money is owed, the administrative process leading up to that point does not infringe the constitutional right to a jury trial.
Who benefits
The FCC and federal agencies that use similar administrative forfeiture processes, which may continue issuing penalty orders without first convening a jury. The Department of Justice, which retains the ability to bring enforcement suits to collect those penalties.
Who is affected
Telecommunications companies and other entities regulated by the FCC that receive forfeiture orders, who must either pay the penalty voluntarily or wait — potentially for years — for the government to bring an enforcement lawsuit before they can contest the penalty before a jury.
Practical impact
Going forward, the FCC may continue its current practice of issuing forfeiture orders through its administrative process without a jury. Regulated parties who receive such orders and choose not to pay voluntarily cannot be penalized for nonpayment unless and until the Department of Justice wins a full jury trial in federal court — and in that trial, the FCC's prior findings carry no special weight. The ruling leaves open the question of whether AT&T and Verizon, who paid under protest based on orders the Court now says were nonbinding, may be entitled to a refund in a separate proceeding.
Majority — Roberts
Joined by: Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson
The majority held that the Seventh Amendment requires a jury only before legal rights and obligations are conclusively decided — not at every preliminary stage of a legal dispute. Because an FCC forfeiture order does not legally obligate payment (the FCC cannot seize assets, charge interest, or penalize nonpayment based on the order alone), it does not settle the recipient's legal rights. The majority further reasoned that because any enforcement action must proceed as a full trial de novo — meaning the jury considers the case entirely fresh, as if the FCC had never made any findings — the jury still gets the ultimate say on the facts. The Court distinguished this case from SEC v. Jarkesy (2024), where SEC penalties were immediately enforceable and no jury was available in enforcement proceedings, meaning the agency alone had the final word. The majority also rejected the carriers' argument that reputational harm from a forfeiture order triggers Seventh Amendment protections, noting that preliminary legal proceedings have always carried reputational risk without that being considered a constitutional problem.
Dissent reasoning
In dissent, Justice Thomas agreed with the majority's legal framework — that a full jury trial de novo must be available before the government can force payment — but argued the Court reached the wrong outcome for the specific parties before it. He contended that when AT&T and Verizon actually received their orders in 2024, the real-world legal landscape did not guarantee them the constitutionally required jury trial: courts across the country had routinely denied regulated parties the right to challenge the FCC's legal conclusions in enforcement actions, and no carrier had ever actually received a jury trial in such a proceeding. The dissent further argued that the orders themselves — which used mandatory language commanding payment within 30 days and expressly claimed the penalties were valid without any Article III court involvement — gave the carriers no reasonable basis to believe the orders were nonbinding. Justice Thomas concluded that the Court was effectively punishing AT&T and Verizon for doing exactly what courts encourage: paying under protest, preserving their objections, and litigating diligently — only to be told, after the government changed its position, that they had paid "voluntarily."
Constitutional question
Does the FCC violate the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial when it issues monetary forfeiture orders through its own administrative process, without involving a jury, before any court has ruled on the underlying violation?
Precedent changed
Extends and distinguishes SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109 (2024): the Court clarified that Jarkesy's requirement of a jury trial before agency penalties are imposed applies only where penalties are immediately enforceable by the agency alone; it does not apply where a full trial de novo before a jury is available before any payment can be compelled.