Supreme Court Upholds FCC’s Authority to Impose In-House Penalties Without Jury Trial
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 against AT&T and Verizon in their challenge to the Federal Communications Commission’s ability to impose monetary penalties without a jury trial. The Court affirmed the FCC’s authority under the Communications Act to seek forfeitures for violations of communications laws.
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Federal Communications Commission’s authority to impose in-house forfeiture penalties without a jury trial, ruling 8-1 against AT&T and Verizon. The Court affirmed that the Communications Act authorizes the FCC to seek monetary forfeitures for violations of communications laws. Under 47 U.S.C. § 503(b), the FCC may issue a notice of apparent liability, review the recipient’s response, and then issue an order assessing a penalty. FCC forfeiture orders are provisional and subject to judicial review. A recipient may seek review in the court of appeals under the Hobbs Act or decline to act and wait for the FCC to pursue recovery. According to mayerbrown.com, the FCC’s forfeiture orders are not definitive resolutions of legal obligations and are subject to de novo review in subsequent enforcement proceedings.
This account was written only from facts that survived Augur's
corroboration pass — 0 corroborated across opposed news blocs,
0 contested (attributed to both sides), 7
single-source (attributed). Nothing was added; no significance was inferred.
Model Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Instruct.
See the evidence & the verbatim quotes →