Telecom Industry Groups: FCC Can’t Issue Fines After Jarkesy
The agency's chairman has defended its enforcement power.
Jake Neenan
WASHINGTON, May 2, 2025 – Major telecom trade groups are pushing the Federal Communications Commission to start the process of revising its enforcement process, arguing it is unconstitutional for the agency to levy fines in light of a Supreme Court decision from last year.
The groups, including CTIA, NCTA, USTelecom, and others, pointed in a Thursday petition to the June 2024 decision in SEC v. Jarkesy, which found the Securities and Exchange Commission couldn’t collect civil fines without a jury trial.
The industry was recently given extra ammunition in the form of a Fifth Circuit decision that threw out a $57 million fine by the FCC against AT&T.
The court found that, under Jarkesy, the company’s right to a jury trial had been effectively denied by the in-house enforcement process.
“The Supreme Court’s decision in SEC v. Jarkesy renders the Commission’s current enforcement process unconstitutional,” the groups wrote. “Based on the Jarkesy decision and this other precedent, the Commission may not continue to impose fines or assess monetary forfeitures.”
The FCC fined the three major 5G carriers last year – before Jarkesy – more than $200 million collectively for failing to vet third parties purchasing customer location data in the wake of news reports of a sheriff’s office accessing the data improperly. All three have pointed to the case in court challenges.
Decisions are still pending in Verizon and T-Mobile’s cases, where judges appeared more skeptical of the constitutional arguments. If those courts rule differently than the Fifth Circuit, the Supreme Court would likely be called on to resolve the split.
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, a commissioner at the time, dissented from the fines when they came down, and has called for reviewing the agency’s enforcement rules after Jarkesy. Republican Commissioner Nathan Simington vowed to dissent from all enforcement actions until the agency reviewed its rules.
But Carr said at a press conference this week he disagreed with the Fifth Circuit ruling.
“Our position continues to be that the FCC can impose fines, impose license revocations, our full suite of potential remedies,” he said. “We respect the Fifth Circuit’s decision but we disagree ultimately with the conclusion there, particularly as it applies to other circuits.”
Experts have noted the decision could significantly weaken the agency’s ability to collect fines. Carr has been using the FCC’s enforcement authority more broadly to pursue his agenda, opening probes into Verizon and Comcast for diversity initiatives, among other investigations, and threatening to hold up mergers if companies don’t roll back similar efforts.
The telecoms didn’t mention specific instances, like Verizon’s pending acquisition of Frontier, but said open investigations shouldn’t affect transaction reviews.
“The Commission should confirm by rule that pending enforcement matters may not serve as a basis for delaying or not approving license or authorization applications and/or renewals, including transactions,” the groups wrote. “Delaying application review is a form of punishment and therefore should not be imposed in the absence of a final order determining that a party has violated the law.”
The trade groups also didn’t specifically ask the agency to provide a jury trial, but said they wanted more transparency and predictability around letters of inquiry, which the agency sends to gather information, independent review of investigations, and a chance to read and respond to notices of liability, documents outlined the agency’s findings after an investigation and proposing fines or penalties, before publication.
Attorneys signing on to the petition included Russell Hanser from NCTA, Umair Javed from CTIA, Nirali Patel from USTelecom, Angela Simpson from the Competitive Carriers association, and Mike Saperstein from the Wireless Infrastructure Association.
Correction: The photo accompanying a previous version of this article incorrectly identified Nirali Patel from USTelecom. The article has been modified with a photo that correctly identifies Patel.
