THE HALFAX HEIMDALL AUGUR

Supreme Court Upholds FCC's Authority to Issue Non-Final Forfeiture ... FCC. v. AT&T, Inc., No. 25–406 Today, the Supreme Court held that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) may issue forfeiture orders under 47 U.S.C. § 503(b) without a jury trial, because such orders do not definitively resolve the parties’ legal obligations and the FCC’s factual findings are not conclusive and indeed subject to de novo review in subsequent enforcement proceedings. The Communications Act authorizes the FCC to seek monetary forfeitures for violations of the communications laws.See47 U. S. C. § 503(b). The FCC can seek such forfeitures through an informal proceeding in which the FCC issues a notice of apparent liability, reviews the recipient’s response, and then issues an order determining whether the recipient is liable and, if so, “assess[ing]” a penalty.Id.§ 503(b)(1), (b)(2)(E), (b)(4). The recipient of such a forfeiture order may either seek review in the court of appeals under the Hobbs Act,see28 U.S.C. § 2342(1), or do nothing and wait for the FCC to seek to recover the forfeiture penalty in a suit brought by the DOJ. The statute provides that such an enforcement action “shall be …

Supreme Court Upholds FCC Forfeiture Regime, Clarifying Limits of The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a significant decision upholding forfeiture penalties imposed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) against several telecommunications carriers. The Court's June 4, 2026, decision inFCC v. AT&T Inc.held that the FCC's administrative process for assessing civil forfeiture penalties does not violate the Seventh Amendment. The 8-1 ruling authored by Chief Justice Roberts resolved a closely watched circuit split and provided important clarity on the scope of its 2024 decision inSecurities & Exch. Comm'n v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109 (2024).Jarkesyheld that administrative adjudications imposing civil monetary penalties without a jury trial violate the Seventh Amendment. The Court's decision inFCC v. AT&Tclarifies thatJarkesydoes not prohibit administrative adjudications where regulated entities retain the right to a full de novo jury trial after the administrative proceedings are concluded and before a regulated entity can be made to pay. Rather, the constitutionality of administrative adjudications turns on whether an agency's process ultimately displaces the role of Article I…

Supreme Court Decision Elevates DOJ's Role in Future FCC ... In a recent decision, the US Supreme Court upheld the Federal Communications Commission’s authority to issue forfeiture penalties but required the option for a jury trial to enforce their collection, which now elevates the US Department of Justice’s role in such enforcement actions. The US Supreme Court’s recent decision inFCC v. AT&Tmarks a significant but qualified victory for the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC or Commission) enforcement authority.[1]In an 8-1 ruling, the Court upheld the FCC’s longstanding forfeiture process against constitutional challenge, concluding that the agency may investigate violations, issue notices of apparent liability, and assess monetary forfeitures without first providing a jury trial.[2] Crucially, however, the Court’s reasoning rested on a feature of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act), that simultaneously elevates the role of the US Department of Justice (DOJ) in FCC enforcement actions. The distinction matters in the post-SEC v. Jarkesy[3]environment because it is now clear that an FCC forfeiture order is not a self-executing money judgment—wi…

Supreme Court sides with FCC power in forfeiture process - Roll Call Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr participates in a FCC meeting at the commission headquarters on Feb. 18, 2026 in Washington. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images) By Michael Macagnone Posted June 4, 2026 at 11:07am Facebook Twitter Email Reddit The Supreme Court upheld on Thursday the Federal Communications Commission’s power to issue findings that companies broke the law, turning aside challenges from telecommunications giants that the agency had to go to the courts first. The 8-1 decision found that the FCC’s forfeiture process does not run afoul of the Constitution because it requires going to court for enforcement. The opinion cuts against a series of recent decisions from the conservative-controlled high court that had rolled back the authority of federal agencies. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., in the majority opinion, wrote the FCC’s forfeitures only become mandatory when the Justice Department sues to enforce them, and therefore do not violate the right to a jury trial. “So if the carriers elect not to pay and await an enforcement action, and the Department decides never to bring one, t…

US supreme court backs FCC in clash with wireless carriers over fines <p>Justices uphold FCC authority to impose in-house penalties, rejecting AT&amp;T and Verizon jury trial claims</p><ul><li><p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/2026/feb/17/sign-up-for-the-breaking-news-us-email-to-get-newsletter-alerts-direct-to-your-inbox?utm_medium=ACQUISITIONS_STANDFIRST&amp;utm_campaign=BN22326&amp;utm_content=signup&amp;utm_term=standfirst&amp;utm_source=GUARDIAN_WEB">Sign up for the Breaking News US newsletter email</a></p></li></ul><p>The US <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/us-supreme-court">supreme court</a> backed the Federal Communications Commission’s system for levying fines, ruling on Thursday against wireless carriers <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/at-t">AT&amp;T</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/verizon-communications">Verizon</a> in their challenge to the agency and handing a win to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/donaldtrump">Donald Trump</a>’s administration.</p><p>The ruling was 8-1. At issue in the legal dispute was whether the agency’s in-house proceedings for imposing the penalties deprived the companies of…