The Supreme Court has decided to hear a case that puts the FCC’s entire system for imposing fines under constitutional scrutiny, and could dramatically redefine how the agency enforces rules on pirate radio, EAS compliance, and broadcast operations.
At issue is whether the Communications Act allows the FCC to levy civil penalties without first providing a jury trial in an Article III court. FCC v. AT&T follows a Fifth Circuit ruling that vacated a $57 million fine against the communications giant, finding the Commission’s internal forfeiture process unconstitutional under the Seventh Amendment and Article III, even though companies can later challenge unpaid fines in federal court.
Under the current process, the FCC issues a Notice of Apparent Liability, reviews written responses, and votes on a forfeiture order. The target can either pay and appeal directly or refuse payment, forcing the Department of Justice to file a collection suit in federal district court, where a jury trial becomes available. The Fifth Circuit found this system unconstitutional because the FCC’s initial liability finding imposes punitive penalties before a jury is ever involved.
The court based its reasoning on the Supreme Court’s 2024 SEC v. Jarkesy decision, which held that when agencies seek punitive civil penalties, the Constitution requires a jury trial. The Fifth Circuit said the FCC’s forfeitures serve the same deterrent purpose as SEC penalties and therefore fall under the same rule.
The FCC and Department of Justice argue that the Act already meets constitutional standards because no money can be collected until a district court case is filed. In district court, defendants receive a full jury trial, and the FCC’s earlier decision carries no binding effect. The agency maintains that Congress designed this process to balance administrative expertise with judicial review, and that more than a century of precedent supports this structure.
The DC Circuit and the Second Circuit appellate courts have upheld that position, ruling that the availability of a later jury trial satisfies the Seventh Amendment. The Fifth Circuit’s contrary ruling created a circuit split, effectively guaranteeing Supreme Court review.
For broadcasters, the implications extend well beyond AT&T’s data privacy dispute. The FCC uses the same forfeiture mechanism to enforce nearly all broadcast rules: from EAS and tower lighting violations to political file, sponsorship ID, indecency, and unlicensed operations.
If the Supreme Court sides with the Fifth Circuit, the FCC would have to pursue all fines directly through the courts, converting what is now an administrative process into full-scale civil litigation. That shift would add years of delay, require significant DOJ resources, and dramatically weaken the agency’s ability to enforce compliance in real time.
The agency warned that if the Fifth Circuit’s decision stands, it would lose the legal foundation to issue fines at all, since the Communications Act requires a valid forfeiture order before any court collection action can proceed.
That vulnerability is already being tested. In Florida, unlicensed broadcaster Fabrice Polynice has cited the Fifth Circuit ruling and Jarkesy in his effort to overturn a $2.39 million fine for repeatedly operating Radio Touche Douce without a license, arguing that the FCC’s process violated his right to a jury trial.
For radio broadcasters, the outcome could redefine the balance between compliance, accountability, and constitutional due process in federal communications law
