The CommLaw Group is pleased to announce the publication of a new Law360 Expert Analysis article by Jonathan S. Marashlian, Managing Partner of The CommLaw Group, PLLC, titled “High Court’s FCC Ruling Adds To Comms Industry Paradox.”
The article examines the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in FCC v. AT&T Inc., and places it in the broader context of several important administrative-law decisions affecting regulated industries, including SEC v. Jarkesy, Corner Post Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp.
While many regulated businesses have watched the Supreme Court’s recent administrative-law cases with the hope that they might meaningfully limit agency power, the article explains why the practical effect for FCC-regulated companies may be more modest. In FCC v. AT&T, the Supreme Court upheld the FCC’s informal forfeiture process against a Seventh Amendment challenge, reasoning that an FCC forfeiture order does not itself operate as an enforceable money judgment. Instead, if a company refuses to pay, the government must bring a separate civil action in federal district court, where the matter is heard anew.
That distinction preserved the FCC’s forfeiture framework. But as the article explains, the practical consequences of an FCC forfeiture order can arise long before any court enters judgment. Such orders may affect financing, investor confidence, transaction diligence, license renewals, regulatory standing, commercial relationships, and reputational risk. For regulated companies, the result is often a difficult choice: pay a disputed penalty, or live with prolonged uncertainty while preserving the right to contest the matter later.
The article also discusses how other Supreme Court decisions provide useful but limited tools for communications providers. Corner Post may help newly injured businesses challenge agency action in certain circumstances, but FCC rules and orders are frequently subject to the Hobbs Act’s short, 60-day direct-review window. McLaughlin may give litigants more room to contest FCC statutory interpretations in district court, but it does not reopen long-expired opportunities for direct challenges to agency rules. And Jarkesy, while significant in other agency contexts, does not broadly dismantle the FCC’s forfeiture process after AT&T.
The practical takeaway is straightforward: although the Supreme Court has shifted important parts of administrative-law doctrine, FCC-regulated businesses should not assume that those developments have substantially weakened the Commission’s day-to-day enforcement leverage. The FCC can still investigate, issue Notices of Apparent Liability, enter forfeiture orders, and rely on complex regulatory frameworks that are often difficult and expensive to challenge. For communications providers, broadband companies, VoIP providers, wireless carriers, telecom resellers, numbering users, robocall mitigation participants, universal service contributors, equipment vendors, and other businesses operating under the FCC’s umbrella, the familiar compliance reality remains: engage early, assess risk carefully, preserve rights deliberately, and avoid assuming that recent Supreme Court decisions alone will provide a simple path out of FCC oversight.
The full Law360 article is available here: “High Court’s FCC Ruling Adds To Comms Industry Paradox.” Readers who are not Law360 subscribers may contact The CommLaw Group at mail@commlawgroup.com to request a copy of the article reprint.
About the Author
Jonathan S. Marashlian is the Managing Partner of The CommLaw Group, PLLC and founder of The Commpliance Group Inc. He advises communications, broadband, VoIP, wireless, technology, and emerging service providers on regulatory strategy, FCC compliance, enforcement risk, universal service obligations, market-entry issues, and the evolving legal frameworks affecting the communications industry.
This advisory is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Companies facing FCC compliance, enforcement, forfeiture, or rule-challenge issues should consult counsel regarding their specific facts and circumstances.