SCOTUS Sides With FCC Over Right to Jury in Forfeiture Cases

In Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, Inc., 608 U.S. ___ (2026), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) does not violate the Seventh Amendment when issuing forfeiture orders without the involvement of a jury. According to the eight-member majority, because forfeiture orders issued under 47 U.S.C. §503(b)(4) do not definitively resolve the parties’ legal obligations, and the FCC’s factual findings in its forfeiture proceedings are not conclusive, the right to a jury does not apply at the administrative stage.

Facts of the Case

The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, authorizes the FCC to investigate regulated parties for suspected violations of the communications laws and to seek monetary forfeitures for violations of those laws. In these cases, the FCC investigated cellular service providers AT&T and Verizon (collectively, the carriers) regarding their treatment of customer location data. Believing that the carriers had violated laws and regulations requiring them to take reasonable steps to keep location data confidential, the FCC sought forfeitures from the carriers.

The FCC first issued the carriers notices of apparent liability under §503(b)(4), which specified the factual and legal bases for the forfeitures the Commission sought. After reviewing the carriers’ responses, the Commission “determined” that the carriers were liable and “assessed” penalties of roughly $57 million against AT&T and $47 million against Verizon. Once the Commission issues an order, the recipient has two options. First, it may seek review in the court of appeals under the Hobbs Act. The court of appeals, sitting without a jury, then reviews the order on the administrative record under the standards set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act. The recipient may also opt to do nothing. In the event of nonpayment of a forfeiture penalty “determined under [§503(b)(4)],” the penalty “shall be recoverable . . . in a civil suit in the name of the United States.”

The FCC may then refer the matter to the Department of Justice, which in turn may—but need not—bring a civil suit within five years of the issuance of the order. That suit “shall be a trial de novo.” The regulated party may, of course, pay the forfeiture voluntarily. But until it does, or the court in a §504 enforcement action orders payment, the Commission may not use the “notice of apparent liability . . . to the prejudice of” the party in other Commission proceedings.

In the cases before the Court, the carriers paid their penalties and filed petitions for review in their respective Courts of Appeals. They argued that requiring forfeiture without the opportunity for a jury trial violates the Seventh Amendment. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted AT&T’s petition for review and vacated the Commission’s order. The court held that the FCC’s enforcement procedures violate the Seventh Amendment because by the time the Commission issues a forfeiture order, it “has already found the facts, interpreted the law, adjudged guilt, and levied punishment”—all without the involvement of a jury.

Meanwhile, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied Verizon’s petition for review on the ground that the FCC’s forfeiture order did not itself compel payment; the Department of Justice “needs to initiate a collection action” under §504 before the carrier can be made to pay. Accordingly, the appeals court held that the Commission does not violate the Seventh Amendment when it issues forfeiture orders without a jury. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the conflict.

Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court sided with the FCC by a vote of 8-1. Forfeiture orders issued under §503(b)(4) do not definitively resolve the parties’ legal obligations. And the Commission’s factual findings are not conclusive,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote on behalf of the majority. “It thus does not offend the Constitution for the Commission to issue forfeiture orders without the involvement of a jury.”

As Chief Justice Roberts explained, Seventh Amendment provides that “[i]n Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.” It does not, however, “prescribe at what stage” of a legal dispute “a trial by jury must, if demanded, be had.” Capital Traction Co. v. Hof, 174 U.S. 1, 23 (1899). The Amendment requires only that, before legal rights and obligations are conclusively “ascertained and determined,” a party has the chance to insist that a jury make the “ultimate determination of issues of fact,” Ex parte Peterson, 253 U. S. 300, 310 (1920).

Citing Supreme Court precedent upholdingnonjury adjudications making initial findings of fact that are subject to de novo review in a subsequent jury trial, the Court concluded that the FCC may issue forfeiture orders without the involvement of a jury. “The FCC’s forfeiture proceedings fit comfortably within these precedents. The orders at issue did not settle the carriers’ legal obligations because, stated simply, they did not create an obligation to pay,” Chief Justice Roberts explained. “And the orders did not reflect the ultimate determination of any fact because, before the carriers could have been made to pay, the Government was required to prove its case to a jury.”

In further support of its decision, the majority cited the text of the statute, emphasizing that it nowhere gives the Commission the authority to execute on a forfeiture order, i.e., seize the carriers’ assets or obtain liens on their property. Additionally, the Commission’s factual findings have no effect in a subsequent enforcement suit.

The Supreme Court went on to distinguish its decision in SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109 (2024), where it held that the SEC’s imposition of civil penalties violated the Seventh Amendment because the “ultimate determination of the facts giving rise to the obligation to pay rested not with a jury, but with the SEC alone” given that the penalties were immediately enforceable.

Finally, the Court rejected the carriers’ argument that the risk of reputational harm unduly burdens their jury right. According to the majority, the uncertain prospect of such harm does not improperly “discourag[e] the exercise” of that right.

Dissent

Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter. “Today, the Court punishes AT&T and Verizon for complying with a government order that they in good faith believed was obligatory, diligently preserving their objection to that order, and then litigating that objection so effectively as to cause the Government to change its position years later. I respectfully dissent,” he wrote.