Supreme Court to test FCC's in-house enforcement powers in Verizon Communications and AT&T challenges

Supreme Court set to test FCC’s internal enforcement powers

The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear consolidated challenges from AT&T and Verizon Communications on April 21 that question whether provisions of the Communications Act of 1934 allowing the Federal Communications Commission to adjudicate enforcement matters and impose penalties within the agency are constitutional. The cases probe whether the FCC may use in‑house proceedings rather than Article III courts to assess fines and sanctions against carriers, a practice the telecom industry contends exceeds constitutional limits on adjudication and judicial power.

Verizon and AT&T argue that allowing internal agency hearings and civil penalties undermines defendants’ rights to impartial judges and to have certain disputes heard in federal courts. The outcome could narrow the FCC’s toolbox for policing misconduct across the sector — from robocall and consumer‑protection enforcement to spectrum and carrier‑compliance disputes — by requiring more matters to proceed before independent judges or in Article III courts. Regulators counter that in‑house adjudications are longstanding features of communications law and are necessary for swift, expert resolution of technical and industry‑specific violations.

Industry lawyers and compliance officers say a decision limiting the FCC’s internal enforcement would force carriers to reassess legal strategies and could lengthen dispute resolution timelines, increase litigation costs and shift regulatory emphasis toward rulemaking and negotiated settlements. A ruling that curtails administrative penalties may also spur Congress to consider statutory changes to preserve agency enforcement efficacy or to create clearer procedural safeguards. For Verizon, which regularly faces complex regulatory oversight across services and network operations, the case presents a significant test of how telecommunications disputes are resolved going forward.

Separate Supreme Court matters touch on product‑liability policy

The court also schedules Monsanto Co. v. Durnell for April 27, where Bayer‑owned Monsanto appeals thousands of state suits alleging its Roundup herbicide causes cancer. The U.S. Solicitor General files a brief siding with Monsanto, arguing state verdicts could undercut federal pesticide regulatory judgments.

High court to consider cellphone location warrants

On April 27 the court will hear Chatrie v. United States to decide whether the Fourth Amendment bars warrants that collect cellphone users’ location histories around crime scenes, a case with implications for how carriers and law enforcement handle location data.