The U.S. Supreme Court declined to rehear a case allowing the Federal Communications Commission to conduct multimillion enforcement actions against Verizon without a jury.
Justices on the high court, in a June 8-1 decision, denied a request from Verizon to rehear a case where the communications agency handed down a $47 million enforcement action against the cellphone carrier.
The FCC said Verizon did not keep customer’s location data appropriately confidential. When the FCC issues an enforcement action, a trial by jury is not necessary to retain the monetary award.
Lawyers for the FCC said the enforcement action against Verizon did not mandate the company to pay a fine. The majority of justices on the high court agreed that the fine did not need to be paid.
However, lawyers for Verizon said the enforcement action against the company appeared to indicate it was necessary to pay the fine. The company paid the $47 million fine early in the course of litigation.
“Under the statute at issue here, the commission is powerless to visit any adverse consequences on a regulated party who receives a forfeiture order,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.
Lawyers for Verizon asked justices to allow for the company to rehear the case in a lower court consistent with the high court’s opinion.
“Short of extraordinary relief like recalling the 2nd Circuit’s mandate, Verizon alone will be out of luck,” lawyers for Verizon wrote. “This court should amend its disposition to avoid that result.”
However, justices on the high court denied Verizon’s attempt to recoup the money lost in the original enforcement action by remanding the case to a lower court. The high court did not explain its reason for refusing to remand the case.
Justice Clarence Thomas, the sole dissent in the case, said the FCC’s enforcement action was not clear enough for Verizon to know it would not need to pay. He also urged his colleagues to consider including a jury in future enforcement actions.
“The court punishes Verizon for complying with a government order that they in good faith believed was obligatory, diligently preserving their objection to that order, and then litigating that objection so effectively as to cause the government to change its position years later,” Thomas wrote.
