Clarence Thomas Breaks With SCOTUS Conservatives in FCC Case Lone Dissent

The Supreme Court upheld the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) authority to pursue monetary penalties against telecom giants AT&T and Verizon, ruling the agency's enforcement process does not violate the Seventh Amendment because companies can ultimately demand a jury trial in federal court.

The case stemmed from roughly $100 million in fines against AT&T and Verizon over its handling of customer location data.

Justice Clarence Thomas broke with the court's conservative majority in the 8-1 ruling, writing: "Today, the Court punishes AT&T and Verizon for complying with a government order that they in good faith believed was obligatory."

He argued the process undermines constitutional protections on property rights.

Supreme Court Court Backs FCC Fines Process in AT&T, Verizon Case

The ruling resolves a split between lower courts and reinforces the FCC's longstanding enforcement structure, even as it underscores limits on when companies must actually pay penalties. Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts said the agency's forfeiture orders do not "definitively resolve" legal obligations because the government must still prove its case in court before collecting any fines. That distinction, the majority said, preserves companies' right to a jury trial.

The case centered on the fines against AT&T and Verizon over allegations they failed to adequately protect sensitive customer location data, including through third-party services. Federal regulators found the companies did not take sufficient safeguards after reports that location data was improperly accessed, including by law enforcement without proper authorization.

The carriers argued the FCC acted as investigator, prosecutor and judge in its own case, imposing penalties without meaningful court review. Industry groups and business advocates warned that if the court sided with AT&T and Verizon, it could upend enforcement tools used across multiple federal agencies, including those regulating financial markets and environmental rules.

Instead, the justices backed the Trump administration‘s position that companies can refuse to pay initial penalties and force the Justice Department to bring a lawsuit, where the claims would be reviewed from scratch. That approach, the court said, avoids the constitutional concerns raised in recent rulings limiting agency power.

Still, the decision highlighted an apparent shift in how the FCC and other regulators describe their authority. The government argued during the case that forfeiture orders are not strictly binding until enforced in court, giving companies more flexibility to challenge penalties without immediately paying them.

Thomas, however, sharply criticized that framing, arguing the FCC's past practice treated its orders as mandatory and left companies effectively coerced into paying fines before securing a jury trial.

This is a breaking news article. Updates to follow.

2026 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.

This story was originally published June 4, 2026 at 7:35 AM.