Skip to content
Project Curia
Supreme Court decisions
No. 25-406Jun 4, 2026Science, Technology, CommunicationsAffirmed

The question

Whether the Seventh Amendment bars the Federal Communications Commission from issuing monetary forfeiture orders under 47 U.S.C. section 503(b)(4) without a jury.

FCC v. AT&T

What the Court decided

The Court held that the FCC may issue forfeiture orders under section 503(b)(4) without a jury, and that doing so does not violate the Seventh Amendment. The reason is that forfeiture orders under that provision do not definitively resolve the parties' legal obligations, and the Commission's factual findings in forfeiture proceedings are not conclusive. Because a party may still obtain jury determination of factual issues before its legal rights are conclusively ascertained, the FCC's nonjury forfeiture process fits within the Court's Seventh Amendment precedents.

How the justices split

8-1
In favor 8Against 1
Roberts
Alito
Sotomayor
Kagan
Gorsuch
Kavanaugh
Barrett
Jackson
Thomas

The Court's opinion

Roberts, joined by Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson

The FCC's forfeiture proceedings fit within the Court's Seventh Amendment precedents. The Amendment preserves the jury right in suits at common law and applies where legal rights are settled, but it does not prescribe at what stage a jury trial must be had. It requires only that, before legal rights and obligations are conclusively ascertained and determined, a party may insist that a jury make the ultimate determination of issues of fact. Because forfeiture orders under section 503(b)(4) do not definitively resolve the parties' legal obligations and the Commission's factual findings are not conclusive, the nonjury proceedings are permissible, consistent with decisions upholding nonjury initial findings subject to de novo review in a later jury trial.

Dissenting

Thomas, writing alone

Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. The syllabus states only that he dissented and does not set out his reasoning.

How we know · 5 sourced claims
  • The Court held that the FCC may issue forfeiture orders under section 503(b)(4) without the involvement of a jury without violating the Seventh Amendment.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • The holding rests on the finding that forfeiture orders under section 503(b)(4) do not definitively resolve the parties' legal obligations and that the FCC's factual findings in forfeiture proceedings are not conclusive.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson.

    Source: syllabus, lineup

  • Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.

    Source: syllabus, lineup

  • The FCC investigated AT&T and Verizon over their treatment of customer location data and sought forfeitures after issuing notices of apparent liability under section 503(b)(4).

    Source: syllabus, Held

Read the opinion on supremecourt.gov