- in United States
- within Technology topic(s)
The U.S. Supreme Court has consolidated two major cases for briefing and argument in its April 21, 2026 sitting: Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, Inc. (No. 25-406) and Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (No. 25-567). These cases present foundational questions about the Federal Communications Commission's enforcement authority, particularly the constitutionality of its administrative adjudication and monetary penalty processes. The Court's review comes as the FCC has been increasingly aggressive in enforcement actions, especially in areas like robocall mitigation and "know your customer" (KYC) obligations, raising deep concerns within the industry about due process, separation of powers, and the scope of agency power in telecommunications regulation.
Amicus briefs in cases of this magnitude often illuminate industry-wide implications beyond the immediate positions of the primary parties. One such brief, filed by Telnyx LLC on February 25, 2026, supports the respondent in No. 25-406 and the petitioner in No. 25-567, urging the Court to consider the real-world consequences of unchecked FCC enforcement authority under current administrative processes. Telnyx's filing provides a concrete, contemporary example of how the Commission's enforcement model can expose telecommunications providers to excessive risk without clear constitutional safeguards.
Key Points from the Telnyx Amicus Brief
Telnyx's brief is grounded in constitutional concerns, particularly focusing on the Seventh Amendment and Article III of the U.S. Constitution. At its core, the filing argues that the FCC's Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL) process unlawfully permits the agency to act simultaneously as investigator, prosecutor, judge, and fact-finder when imposing punitive penalties against regulated entities. This conflation of roles, Telnyx contends, deprives companies of their right to a neutral adjudicator and—in many cases—the right to have factual disputes heard by a jury.
The brief explains that the FCC's process, as currently structured, allows it to issue NALs with significant forfeiture amounts without affording regulated parties any real opportunity for a hearing before an impartial tribunal. Instead, companies are left to respond in writing within a short window, after which the agency can issue a final forfeiture order without any form of neutral adjudication. This framework, Telnyx argues, directly conflicts with the Supreme Court's reasoning in SEC v. Jarkesy (2024), which emphasized that enforcement mechanisms imposing monetary penalties should not circumvent constitutional guarantees—including the right to a jury trial.
Telnyx's Experience as Illustrative of Broader Industry Impact
To illustrate these doctrinal concerns, Telnyx recounts its own experience with the FCC's enforcement practices. In February 2025, the Commission issued a Notice of Apparent Liability against Telnyx alleging "know your customer" rule violations in connection with a limited robocall incident on its network. Although Telnyx had identified and stopped the problematic traffic within hours and voluntarily reported the issue to the FCC, the Commission proposed a forfeiture of nearly $4.5 million and provided Telnyx with only two unilateral options: pay in full or submit a written response without a hearing.
The amicus brief explains that, under these procedures, the FCC effectively assumes the role of victim and adjudicator, even in cases where its own members are the recipients of the problematic traffic in question. Telnyx argues that this enforcement model has inflicted real harm—both financial and reputational—not only on its business but potentially on other communications providers facing similarly aggressive enforcement. The brief further points out that the agency's labeling of Telnyx as a "bad actor" in subsequent rulemaking proceedings illustrates how an unresolved NAL can extend beyond the enforcement action itself and influence broader regulatory treatment of a carrier.
Industry Takeaway
The Telnyx amicus filing draws a clear line between constitutional limits on agency power and the practical stakes for telecommunications carriers and infrastructure providers. As the Supreme Court considers AT&T v. FCC and Verizon v. FCC, the questions about the constitutionality of administrative enforcement processes have implications that go well beyond the parties directly before the Court. A ruling reinforcing due process constraints on agency enforcement could reshape how the FCC pursues forfeitures and other penalties, and could offer greater predictability and procedural protections for carriers in an era of heightened regulatory scrutiny.
For regulated entities, this development is one to watch. The decision may affect not only how enforcement actions are litigated, but also how carriers approach compliance risk, enforcement strategy, and interaction with the Commission in both formal investigations and rulemakings.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
