Federal Communications Commission, et al., Petitioners v. AT&T, Inc.

AT&T is challenging the FCC's power to issue fines for sharing customer location data with third parties. The company argues that the Communications Act of 1934 violates the Seventh Amendment by allowing the agency to bypass a jury trial. The Court must decide if these enforcement actions belong in a traditional court instead of an internal agency hearing.

This case could limit how federal agencies protect consumer privacy and enforce rules. If the FCC loses, it might have to take every major fine case to a federal court, making enforcement slower and more expensive. This affects millions of mobile users whose sensitive location data was shared with outside groups.

This case follows a trend of the Supreme Court reducing the power of federal agencies, often called the 'administrative state.' It tests whether agencies can act as both prosecutor and judge when punishing companies for breaking the law. The decision will define the boundaries of agency power in the post-Chevron era (the time after a major ruling that limited agency flexibility).

No substantive justice or advocate reactions are available yet.

The Supreme Court will decide if the FCC can legally fine companies without going through a full jury trial in federal court.

The case is currently waiting for the Supreme Court to schedule oral arguments. After the hearing, the justices will deliberate and likely release a final decision by the end of the term in June 2025.

Between 2014 and 2019, AT&T shared customer location data with third-party providers like Life Alert and AAA. The FCC claims AT&T failed to ensure these providers actually had customer consent before accessing the sensitive data.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases involving financial penalties. AT&T argues that because the FCC is seeking monetary forfeitures (fines), the case must be decided by a jury in a traditional court.

The Fifth Circuit is the lower court that previously handled this dispute before it reached the Supreme Court. This court has recently been a frequent source of legal challenges that aim to limit the power of federal agencies.

A ruling against the FCC could force the agency to bring all major fine cases to federal court rather than handling them internally. This would likely make the enforcement process much slower and more difficult for the government to manage.

The Court is increasingly moving away from giving agencies broad flexibility to interpret laws and punish companies. This case tests whether agencies can continue to use internal processes to enforce rules without direct oversight from the judicial branch.