Supreme Court sides with FCC in clash with wireless carriers over fines

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court backed the Federal Communications Commission’s system for levying fines, ruling on Thursday against wireless carriers AT&T and Verizon in their challenge to the agency and handing a win to President Donald Trump’s administration.

The ruling was 8-1. At issue in the legal dispute was whether the agency’s in-house proceedings for imposing the penalties deprived the companies of their right to a jury trial under the U.S. Constitution. Trump’s administration defended the FCC’s system for assessing financial penalties, known as forfeiture orders. 

The FCC fined AT&T $57 million and Verizon nearly $47 million after the agency concluded that the companies had unlawfully sold access to customer location data to third parties without securing the consent of users.

In all, the FCC imposed nearly $200 million in fines on carriers that it said failed to safeguard customer data. It fined T-Mobile $80 million and Sprint, which T-Mobile acquired in 2020, $12 million. 

Verizon and AT&T paid the fines they were assessed, but also filed legal challenges that eventually led to a split among regional U.S. appellate courts over the lawfulness of the FCC’s in-house procedure for imposing the penalties.

In Verizon’s case, the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the fine. The Constitution permits the FCC to provide an initial penalty assessment as long as an accused party can challenge the government’s collection efforts in court, the 2nd Circuit ruled, prompting Verizon’s appeal to the Supreme Court.

In AT&T’s case, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC’s initial assessment of wrongdoing and a fine deprived the company of its constitutional right to a jury trial. That ruling prompted the FCC to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The legal dispute marked the latest case to test whether a federal agency’s internal enforcement arrangement violates the constitutional right to a jury trial after the Supreme Court in 2024 curbed the power of in-house proceedings at the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

In the government’s defense of the FCC’s in-house system, Justice Department lawyers had argued that the agency’s assessments are not binding. If the government were to bring an enforcement action in court, it would allow the companies to make their case before a jury, the lawyers argued.

The companies, for their part, said that the FCC’s system impermissibly uses in-house proceedings for a process that belongs in court, depriving them of their right to a jury trial. The FCC’s initial assessments, they added, inflict reputational harm before the accused have had their day in court.

The Supreme Court in 2025 also issued an important ruling involving the FCC, endorsing the way the agency funds its multi-billion-dollar program to expand phone and broadband internet access to low-income and rural Americans and other beneficiaries.

Court backs generic drugmaker in ‘skinny label’ patent case

The justices also ruled on Thursday that drugmaker Hikma’s generic version of Amarin Pharma’s cardiovascular medication Vascepa did not infringe Amarin’s patents, in a decision that may make generic drugmakers less vulnerable to patent lawsuits involving so-called “skinny labels.”

The justices, in a 9-0 ruling, overturned a lower court’s decision in favor of Amarin. Generic drugmakers argued that a ruling in favor of Amarin in the case would have discouraged them from making and selling their lower-cost drugs and increased U.S. drug prices.

President Donald Trump’s administration supported Hikma’s Supreme Court appeal.

Pharmaceuticals can be protected by patents covering both the drug’s active ingredient and specific methods of using it.

“Skinny labels,” meant to encourage generic competition, are intended to allow generic drugmakers to avoid patent lawsuits if the label of their generic omits infringing uses of the brand-name drug it replicates.

The FDA approved London-based Hikma’s generic Vascepa solely to treat severe hypertriglyceridemia and required it to include a skinny label that omitted the drug’s use to treat non-severe hypertriglyceridemia, which was still covered by Amarin patents.

Vascepa, derived from fish oil, has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to lower triglycerides, a common type of fat, and reduce the risk of heart issues. It is currently Amarin’s only product.

Irish-American biopharmaceutical company Amarin earned $213.6 million in revenue from Vascepa sales in 2025, according to a company filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The FDA approved Vascepa in 2012 to treat severe hypertriglyceridemia, a condition involving an excess of fats in the blood, before approving it for less-severe hypertriglyceridemia in 2019.

Amarin sued Hikma in Delaware federal court in 2020. Amarin argued that Hikma’s label, combined with statements in press releases and on its website, encouraged doctors to prescribe it for the less severe condition. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said Hikma publicly referred to its drug as “generic Vascepa” without clarifying that it was approved only for one specific use, which could have encouraged doctors to prescribe it for infringing uses.

Hikma told the Supreme Court in a brief that generic drugs have saved patients and insurance payers an estimated $2.9 trillion in the past decade. The company and the Trump administration both argued that allowing lawsuits like Amarin’s could disincentivize generic drugmakers and lead to increased drug prices.

Amarin told the justices that Hikma’s alleged infringement was atypical, noting that it had not sued seven other companies that also make generic Vascepa.

Copyright Reuters or USA Today Network via Reuters Connect.

This story was originally published June 4, 2026 at 11:28 AM.