Why It Matters
A Supreme Court ruling handed down June 4 has drawn a clearer constitutional line around federal agency enforcement power, one with consequences stretching well beyond telecommunications. The FCC v. AT&T decision, analyzed in a June 12 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, resolves a question that had unsettled regulators since 2024: when does an agency's civil penalty process require a jury trial? The answer, according to an 8-1 Court, turns on whether the agency can actually collect the money on its own.
The Big Picture
The case traces back to SEC v. Jarkesy, the 2024 decision in which the Court held that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) could not impose civil penalties for securities fraud through in-house administrative proceedings without a jury. The ruling sent tremors through the regulatory world. In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that more than 200 statutes authorizing dozens of agencies to impose civil penalties could be called into question.
FCC v. AT&T now supplies a limiting principle. The Federal Communications Commission's (FEC) forfeiture penalty system under Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 works differently than the SEC's. When the FCC issues a forfeiture order, that order is non-binding. The agency cannot garnish wages or deduct amounts from tax returns. If a regulated party refuses to pay, the FCC must refer the matter to the Department of Justice (DOJ), which then decides whether to file a collection action in federal district court, where the defendant is entitled to a full de novo jury trial. No interest accrues on unpaid forfeitures in the interim, and under Section 504(c) of the Communications Act, the FCC cannot use an unresolved forfeiture against a party in other proceedings.
Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the Court, held that the Seventh Amendment does not require a jury at every stage of a legal dispute, only before rights and obligations are "conclusively ascertained and determined." Because the FCC's order triggers no immediate legal consequence and requires the DOJ to win in court before any penalty is collected, the order is not a "suit" under the Seventh Amendment at all.
The CRS report identifies at least eleven other federal statutes that use similar enforcement architectures, including the Federal Power Act, which governs how the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission handles hydropower violations. The Department of Energy, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Department of Health and Human Services also use models in which an agency issues a penalty order but must pursue a de novo court action to collect. Under the AT&T framework, those schemes may also survive constitutional challenge.
Political Stakes
For the Administration
The decision preserves enforcement tools the FCC relies on to police telecommunications carriers on issues including customer data privacy. The FCC petitioned for Supreme Court review, meaning the administration's own regulatory agency argued for, and won, a validation of its penalty authority. That sits in tension with a broader deregulatory posture, illustrating that even an administration skeptical of agency power depends on those same agencies' enforcement mechanisms to administer federal law.
Because the FCC and similarly structured agencies cannot collect penalties without a DOJ lawsuit, the administration now holds significant discretionary leverage over whether regulatory penalties are ever actually enforced. The CRS report flags this directly, noting that DOJ would have to "assess its own available resources, evaluate the available evidence, and weigh its competing enforcement policy priorities" before electing to pursue a claim. An administration that declines to direct DOJ to file collection actions can functionally neutralize agency penalty orders without changing a single statute.
For Congress
The report outlines several paths forward. Lawmakers who want to ensure agency enforcement survives further constitutional challenge could model new penalty statutes on the FCC's structure, ensuring that no penalty accrues interest, that agencies cannot use unresolved orders against parties in other proceedings, and that ultimate collection runs through DOJ and a jury. Alternatively, Congress could grant specific agencies independent litigating authority, allowing them to bring suit in federal court directly rather than depending on DOJ. A third option would allow parties subject to agency adjudications to remove proceedings to federal court, giving regulated entities the choice of forum rather than having it imposed on them.
For Democrats and consumer advocates, the ruling preserves the legal architecture of agency enforcement but raises the practical concern that enforcement effectiveness now depends on DOJ cooperation.
For the Public
For regulated industries, the decision cuts both ways. The CRS report notes that the ruling may make companies more willing to refuse payment and wait for DOJ to act, since the Court has now clarified that forfeiture orders carry no immediate legal obligation. Litigation in federal district court is expensive and reputationally fraught, but the option is now more clearly available. Justice Clarence Thomas, in dissent, noted that parties who paid forfeitures before the ruling may have done so under a "good faith belief" that they had an immediate legal obligation, a belief the Court has now dispelled.
The Bottom Line
The FCC v. AT&T ruling does not reverse the tide that Jarkesy set in motion, but it establishes where that tide stops. Agencies whose penalty orders require DOJ to win in court before a dollar is collected are on solid constitutional ground. Agencies that can enforce penalties on their own are not.
What the ruling does not resolve is whether that constitutional clarity translates into effective enforcement. The more regulated entities understand that forfeiture orders are non-binding, the more litigation Congress and the administration should expect.
Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article