We will hear argument this morning in case 25406, the Federal Communications Commission

v. AT&T and the consolidated case.

Mr. Wall?

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court.

The FCC imposed more than $100 million of civil penalties on AT&T and Verizon, and the companies had no way to demand a jury trial.

That's a straightforward violation of the Seventh Amendment and this Court's decision in Jarkacy.

The government's only answer is that the penalties weren't binding.

They were just invitations to pay $100 million, if you want.

And that's wrong for at least four reasons.

First, the statute says that the FCC issues a charging document, considers the party's response,

and then assesses and imposes penalties.

That's not voluntary language.

Second, it's the same language Congress has used in many statutes, including the SEC statute

in Jarkacy, and the government has never claimed it is voluntary.

Third, there's an alternative procedure by which the Commission itself, or an ALJ, can assess

and impose penalties. Same statutory language, the government appears to accept that type of forfeiture order is binding.

And fourth, it's not how the FCC has read the statute for decades.

Its regulation and guidance treat forfeiture orders as binding.

These orders are Exhibit A.

In bold capital letters, they command payment by a particular date. If the government

were right about the statute, it would just walk them into a constitutional problem. They want

these forfeiture orders because they know that legitimate parties pay 100 percent of the time.

...