Oral Argument: FCC v. AT&T

FCC v. AT&T, Inc., consolidated with Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC | Case Nos. 25-406 & 25-567 | Docket Links: Here and Here

Oral Advocates:

• Petitioners (AT&T, Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc.): Jeffrey B. Wall of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
• Respondents (FCC): Vivek Suri of the Department of Justice

Question Presented: Whether the Communications Act violates the Seventh Amendment and Article III by authorizing the FCC to order payment of monetary penalties for failing to safeguard customer data, without guaranteeing carriers a jury trial.

Overview: A Missouri sheriff exploited AT&T's and Verizon's location-data programs to track hundreds of people without consent. The FCC ordered AT&T to pay $57.3 million and Verizon $46.9 million — through in-house proceedings offering no jury — raising the question whether those proceedings violate the Seventh Amendment's guarantee of a jury trial in suits at common law.

Posture: Fifth Circuit vacated AT&T's penalty; Second and D.C. Circuits upheld Verizon's and Sprint's. Supreme Court consolidated and granted cert January 9, 2026.

Main Arguments:

• AT&T and Verizon: (1) FCC forfeiture proceedings constitute "Suits at common law" demanding a jury before any final liability order enters; (2) The back-end Section 504 jury option fails — no carrier received a jury trial in 47 years under this scheme; (3) The scheme unconstitutionally conditions jury-trial rights on defying a final federal order and risking operating licenses.

• FCC and United States: (1) FCC forfeiture orders impose no binding legal obligation — a carrier may lawfully do nothing after receiving one; (2) The Seventh Amendment right attaches at the collection suit, where carriers receive a full de novo jury trial under Section 504(a); (3) The Court's 1915 ruling in Meeker v. Lehigh Valley Railroad already upheld this exact model, and founding-era practice confirms its validity.

Implications: An AT&T and Verizon victory strips the FCC of its primary enforcement tool, potentially leaving privacy, robocall, and data-security rules unenforced — and destabilizing similar penalty structures across at least five other federal agencies. An FCC and United States victory confirms that agencies may enter nine-figure penalty judgments through in-house proceedings, with regulated businesses' only realistic path running through courts that apply deferential review — not juries.

The Fine Print:

• U.S. Const. amend. VII: "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

• 47 U.S.C. § 504(a): "The forfeitures provided for in this chapter shall be payable into the Treasury of the United States, and shall be recoverable...in a civil suit in the name of the United States...Provided, That any suit for the recovery of a forfeiture imposed pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall be a trial de novo."

Primary Cases:

• SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109 (2024): The Seventh Amendment applies when a federal agency seeks civil penalties through in-house proceedings that parallel common-law suits; Congress cannot remove such claims from jury adjudication by assigning them to an administrative tribunal.

• Meeker v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co., 236 U.S. 412 (1915): A statute authorizing an agency to issue non-binding monetary awards — enforceable in subsequent civil suits with jury trials — does not violate the Seventh Amendment because no question of fact passes from the jury.

Timestamps:

[00:00:00] Argument Preview

[00:01:23] Oral Advocates

[00:01:33] Argument Begins

[00:01:44] AT&T Opening Statement

[00:03:37] AT&T Free for All Questions

[00:28:25] AT&T Round Robin Questions

[00:55:12] FCC Opening Statement

[00:56:56] FCC Free for All Questions

[01:20:27] FCC Round Robin Questions

[01:22:12] AT&T Rebuttal