SCOTUS Oral Arguments · April 21 · 1 hr 24 min

FCC v. AT&T

FCC v. AT&T, No. 25-406 Argued on Apr 21 2026. For AT&T, Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc.: Jeffrey B. Wall, Washington, D. C. For FCC, et al.: Vivek Suri, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. VIDED. Question Presented: The Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq ., empowers the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to assess monetary forfeiture penalties for certain violations of the Act or the FCC's regulations by issuing a notice of apparent liability, giving the regulated party an opportunity to respond in writing, and then issuing a final decision. If the regulated party declines to pay and the government sues to collect the penalties, the regulated party is entitled to a de novo jury trial in a federal district court. Alternatively, the subject of an FCC forfeiture order may pay the monetary penalty and file a petition for review in a court of appeals, thereby triggering a judicial-review proceeding in which no jury is available. The question presented is as follows: Whether the Communications Act provisions that govern the FCC's assessment and enforcement of monetary forfeitures are consistent with the Seventh Amendment and Article III. Oral Argument Links: SCOTUS Oral Argument Page Transcript PDF Docket Links: SCOTUS Docket Page Question Presented Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (White Br.) Brief in Opposition (Orange Br.) Reply Brief in Support of Petition (Tan Br.) Petitioner's Opening Brief on the Merits (Blue Br.) Chapters: (00:00:00) Case Call (00:00:07) ORAL ARGUMENT OF JEFFREY B. WALL (00:53:41) ORAL ARGUMENT OF VIVEK SURI Disclosure, Disclaimer, and Credits: Independent feed. NOT affiliated with the Supreme Court of the United States or any other entity. Audio files from and links to the Supreme Court of the United States' website. Image credit to Ian Hutchinson, https://unsplash.com/photos/U8WfiRpsQ7Y

0:00-1:24:32

Play in

transcript

No transcript — this publisher did not publish one.

show notes

FCC v. AT&T, No. 25-406

Argued on Apr 21 2026.

For AT&T, Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc.: Jeffrey B. Wall, Washington, D. C. For FCC, et al.: Vivek Suri, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. VIDED.

Question Presented:

The Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq ., empowers the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to assess monetary forfeiture penalties for certain violations of the Act or the FCC's regulations by issuing a notice of apparent liability, giving the regulated party an opportunity to respond in writing, and then issuing a final decision. If the regulated party declines to pay and the government sues to collect the penalties, the regulated party is entitled to a de novo jury trial in a federal district court. Alternatively, the subject of an FCC forfeiture order may pay the monetary penalty and file a petition for review in a court of appeals, thereby triggering a judicial-review proceeding in which no jury is available. The question presented is as follows: Whether the Communications Act provisions that govern the FCC's assessment and enforcement of monetary forfeitures are consistent with the Seventh Amendment and Article III.

Oral Argument Links: