“Juries, Not Bureaus”: AT&T v. FCC and the Constitutional Limits on In-House Civil-Penalty Adjudication

Introduction

AT&T v. FCC, decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on 17 April 2025, squarely addresses whether the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) may impose multi-million-dollar civil penalties through an internal, jury-free process. The FCC had fined AT&T $57 million for allegedly mishandling customer location data in violation of §222 of the Telecommunications Act. AT&T petitioned for review, asserting that the Commission’s “in-house” procedure violated two bedrock constitutional guarantees:

the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in “suits at common law”; and
the requirement that the “judicial Power” be exercised by Article III courts, not by executive agencies, except in narrow “public rights” areas.

Relying heavily on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in SEC v. Jarkesy (2024), the Fifth Circuit accepted AT&T’s constitutional arguments, vacated the $57 million forfeiture order, and created an influential precedent likely to reshape federal administrative enforcement far beyond the telecommunications sector.

Summary of the Judgment

Holding. The FCC’s internal forfeiture procedure—under which the Commission (1) investigates, (2) charges, (3) finds liability, and (4) sets punitive monetary penalties without a jury—violates both the Seventh Amendment and Article III. A back-end, optional “§504 collection action” in district court does not cure the violation.

Disposition. The Fifth Circuit granted AT&T’s petition for review, vacated the forfeiture order, and declined to reach AT&T’s alternative statutory and non-delegation arguments.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109 (2024) – Cornerstone precedent establishing that civil-penalty actions sounding in common-law fraud must be tried to a jury in an Article III court; furnished the analytical template the Fifth Circuit applied to the FCC regime.
Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. 412 (1987) – Recognized that civil penalties are the archetypal “legal” remedy triggering the Seventh Amendment.
Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33 (1989) – Articulated the two-part “cause of action / remedy” test for determining whether a matter is “legal” or “equitable” for Seventh Amendment purposes; adopted in Jarkesy and applied here.
Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011); Murray’s Lessee (1856) – Clarified the narrow scope of the “public rights” exception to Article III jurisdiction.
Historic common-carrier negligence cases (Cole v. Goodwin, Meeker v. Lehigh Valley R.R.) – Demonstrated that claims against carriers for unreasonable conduct have long been tried in ordinary courts, reinforcing that the FCC action is not a unique “public right.”
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024) – Cited for the standard of de novo review now applicable to agency interpretations after Chevron’s demise.

2. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

Is the FCC action a “suit at common law”?
• The remedy—punitive civil money penalties—“could only be enforced in courts of law” and is “all but dispositive” under Tull/Jarkesy.
• The cause of action mirrors common-law negligence: §222 penalises carriers for failing to take “reasonable measures” to safeguard customer data.
⇒ Therefore the Seventh Amendment jury right attaches.
Does the “public rights” exception apply?
• The exception is limited to historically non-judicial matters (tariffs, immigration, public benefits, patents, etc.).
• Common-carrier negligence actions historically lay in courts; regulating an industry “affected with a public interest” does not automatically convert private rights into public rights.
⇒ Article III adjudication is required.
Does a later §504 collection action save the regime?
• No. By the time DOJ files, the FCC has already acted as prosecutor, judge, and jury; reputational and practical consequences attach immediately.
• Constitutional guarantees must be honored before liability and penalties are fixed, not afterwards.

3. Potential Impact of the Decision

FCC Enforcement. Any future attempt by the FCC to impose forfeiture penalties without offering a jury trial in an Article III court is vulnerable. The agency will likely have to:
- Route penalty cases to federal district courts ab initio, or
- Create administrative processes confined to purely remedial (non-punitive) relief.
Other Civil-Penalty Agencies. The logic applies equally to the Federal Trade Commission, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Department of Labor, and any agency that both adjudicates facts and imposes punitive money penalties internally.
Administrative Procedure Design. Congress may need to amend numerous statutory schemes to provide jury-trial options, or narrow agency remedies to restitution or injunctive relief.
Litigation Strategy. Regulated entities now have a clear roadmap for challenging in-house enforcement: invoke Jarkesy and AT&T v. FCC to demand an Article III venue and jury.
Separation-of-Powers Dialogue. The decision continues the Supreme Court’s and Fifth Circuit’s trend of reinvigorating structural constitutional constraints (non-delegation, Article II removal, Article III adjudication).

Complex Concepts Simplified

Article III Court – A federal court whose judges have life tenure and salary protection; the only courts empowered to exercise the full “judicial power.”
Seventh Amendment Right – Guarantees a jury trial in federal civil cases that are “suits at common law” (i.e., historically tried to juries).
“Public Rights” Exception – A narrow carve-out allowing Congress to assign certain matters to administrative tribunals because the disputes have traditionally been resolved by political branches (e.g., veterans benefits).
CPNI (Customer Proprietary Network Information) – Statutory term for sensitive telecom data such as location, call logs, or service usage.
NAL (Notice of Apparent Liability) – The FCC’s charging document, similar to an indictment; proposes a penalty and states the alleged violations.
Forfeiture Order – The FCC’s final decision imposing a monetary penalty after considering a written response to the NAL.
§504 Collection Action – If a party refuses to pay, the DOJ sues in district court to collect; the FCC views this as a “trial de novo,” though the Fifth Circuit held it does not satisfy constitutional requirements.

Conclusion

By aligning telecommunications enforcement with the jury-trial and Article III requirements reaffirmed in Jarkesy, the Fifth Circuit has added another keystone to the constitutional revival shaping modern administrative law. AT&T v. FCC signals that punitive monetary penalties—no matter how “technical” the underlying statute or how “public” the regulated industry—must be imposed by juries in federal courts unless Congress can fit the case within a historically recognized category of “public rights.” Agencies nationwide must now reckon with that mandate, redesigning procedures or seeking new legislation if they wish to keep civil-penalty authority intact. For practitioners and scholars, the decision illustrates the Court of Appeals’ willingness to apply structural constitutional doctrine with rigor and foreshadows further challenges to expansive administrative adjudication regimes.