FCC Supreme Court fines authority under review
The FCC Supreme Court fines authority is now under intense legal and political pressure. The Supreme Court will decide whether the FCC acted unconstitutionally when it fined major wireless carriers in 2024. The case centers on whether companies have a right to a jury trial before the FCC can impose monetary penalties.
In 2024, the FCC fined AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon nearly $200 million. The agency said the carriers illegally shared customer location data without consent. As a result, all three companies challenged the fines in federal court.
However, the courts have not agreed. The Fifth Circuit ruled that the FCC violated the Constitution. Meanwhile, the Second Circuit and the D.C. Circuit upheld the agency’s authority.
Supreme Court decision could shift FCC enforcement power
Now, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the AT&T and Verizon cases. That decision could also affect the ruling against T-Mobile. According to New Street Research policy analyst Blair Levin, the FCC is unlikely to lose its enforcement role entirely.
However, if the Court sides with the Fifth Circuit, the FCC would face new limits. Specifically, the agency could not impose fines without a jury trial. Even so, the FCC would retain broad investigative authority. It could still issue subpoenas, collect evidence, and negotiate settlements.
As a result, companies under investigation would gain leverage. Levin said targets of FCC probes would be in a stronger negotiating position going forward.
Congressional oversight adds more pressure
At the same time, the FCC faces growing scrutiny from Congress. The Supreme Court hearing coincides with a House oversight session focused on agency authority. FCC Chair Brendan Carr has promoted a sweeping deregulatory agenda. He has also increased scrutiny of mergers, media ownership, and diversity policies.
Still, controversy continues. In December, Carr stated the FCC is not formally an independent agency. That comment drew attention after the term “independent” disappeared from the FCC’s mission statement.
During the hearing, Representative Richard Hudson praised the FCC’s deregulatory efforts. However, he urged progress on spectrum policy, USF reform, and outdated media ownership rules. In contrast, Representative Frank Pallone accused Carr of abusing FCC power for political purposes.
As legal and political battles converge, the outcome could redefine how the FCC enforces its authority in the years ahead.
