Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T
The Court held that the FCC did not violate the Seventh Amendment by issuing forfeiture orders without a jury trial, because such orders do not definitively resolve legal obligations and the defendant keeps the right to a full de novo jury trial before paying.· AI-written
146 S. Ct. 1418 · No. 25-406 · 2025 term · Roberts Court
Decided Jun 4, 2026 · argued Apr 21, 2026
Economic activity · Federal and some few state regulations of public utilities regulation: telephone or telegraph company
Majority opinion: John Roberts
The voteMajorityDissent
8–18 in the majority, 1 in dissent
1 dissent (8–1)
Reversed and remanded. Federal Communications Commission won.
What this ruling means
Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Federal Communications Commission was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
FCC v. AT&T Inc., 608 U.S. ___ (2026), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that because forfeiture orders issued under §503(b)(4) do not definitively resolve the parties' legal obligations, and the FCC's factual findings in forfeiture proceedings are not conclusive, it does not violate the Seventh Amendment for the FCC to issue forfeiture orders without a jury trial. Because of this, the Seventh Amendment does not prohibit administrative adjudications without juries as long as the defendant retains the right to a full de novo jury trial after the administrative proceedings are concluded and before they can be made to pay.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their provisional Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2025 term. Filled: the 8 in the majority. Hollow: the 1 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(8)
John RobertsWrote the majority opinion
Sonia SotomayorJoined the majority
Ketanji JacksonJoined the majority
Elena KaganJoined the majority
Brett KavanaughJoined the majority
Amy BarrettJoined the majority
Neil GorsuchJoined the majority
Samuel AlitoJoined the majority
Dissent(1)
Clarence ThomasWrote a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The 2025 scores are provisional. The official Martin–Quinn release does not cover this term yet, so the scores are copied from Lee Epstein, Andrew D. Martin & Michael J. Nelson, Provisional Data Report on the U.S. Supreme Court's 2025 Term, Table 3.1 (scores by Kevin Quinn), published 2026-06-30. They will be replaced by the official scores when those come out, and may change. The median line is the middle of these nine scores.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Federal Communications CommissionFederal Communications Commission
- Respondent
- AT&TTelephone, telecommunications, or telegraph company
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
- Why it was taken
- Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Seventh Amendment
- Kind of law
- Constitutional Amendment
- Decided by
- Judicial review (national level)
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 4, 2026DecidedDecided · Decided 8–1: reversed and remanded. Federal Communications Commission won.
- Apr 21, 2026ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Began in and was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit: stay, petition, or motion granted.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
10 other argued cases since 1946 on federal and some few state regulations of public utilities regulation: telephone or telegraph company, newest first.
- Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers' Research145 S. Ct. 2482Jun 27, 2025 · 145 S. Ct. 2482Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Facebook Inc. v. Duguid141 S. Ct. 1163Apr 1, 2021 · 141 S. Ct. 1163Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- T Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell, Georgia.574 U.S. 293Jan 14, 2015 · 574 U.S. 293Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Talk America, Petitioner v. Michigan Bell Telephone Company dba AT&T Michigan564 U.S. 50Jun 9, 2011 · 564 U.S. 50Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
- Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc.550 U.S. 45Apr 17, 2007 · 550 U.S. 45Economic activity7–27–2 band
- Mathias v. Worldcom Techs.535 U.S. 682May 20, 2002 · 535 U.S. 682Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
- Verizon Communications Inc., et al. v. Federal Communications Commission, et al.535 U.S. 467May 13, 2002 · 535 U.S. 467Economic activity6–27–2 band
- AT&T Corporation, et al. v. Iowa Utilities Board et al.525 U.S. 366Jan 25, 1999 · 525 U.S. 366Economic activity7–18–1 band
- McI Telecommunications Corporation v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company512 U.S. 218Jun 17, 1994 · 512 U.S. 218Economic activity5–36–3 band
- Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company of Virginia et al.464 U.S. 30Nov 1, 1983 · 464 U.S. 30Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.