FCC Fines Are Just Paper, But 'Still Tigers,' High Court Told
Constitutional questions test judicial philosophy as Americans debate the role of unelected judges.
Mainstream coverage treats this FCC fight like a technical squabble over procedure. But when regulators insist their “fines” are harmless until collected, they are asking the public to ignore what everyone in business already knows: an agency penalty is a real threat the moment it lands. AT&T and Verizon are right to press the point.
New Republican Times Editorial Board
AT&T and Verizon told the U.S. Supreme Court that no matter how the Federal Communications Commission portrays its fines, they amount to binding orders that run afoul of the Seventh Amendment because there's no clear path to challenge them in court.
Original source:
Read at Law360How We See It
New Republican Times Editorial Board
Mainstream coverage treats this FCC fight like a technical squabble over procedure. But when regulators insist their “fines” are harmless until collected, they are asking the public to ignore what everyone in business already knows: an agency penalty is a real threat the moment it lands.
AT&T and Verizon are right to press the point. A system that lets the FCC announce massive liabilities, posture as prosecutor and judge, and then shrug off judicial review until later is not neutral administration. It is leverage. And leverage without a clear day in court corrodes public trust.
The Seventh Amendment is not a boutique concern. It reflects rule of law, due process, and basic fairness when the government seeks money and punishment. If an order functions like a binding judgment, it should face meaningful judicial review.
The principle at stake is simple: agencies should not become courts by convenience.
Commentary written with AI assistance by the New Republican Times Editorial Board.