Not So Fast, Mr. Jarkesy

The baffling interplay between the administrative state and the Seventh Amendment gained another wrinkle today in FCC v. AT&T, which reversed a Fifth Circuit judgment and explained:

Even if the Commission’s orders do not require payment, [the telecommunication carriers] contend, the Seventh Amendment nonetheless applies because forfeiture orders have legal effect—namely, they enable the Department of Justice to initiate a § 504 suit. But the Seventh Amendment “secure[s] a right to the individual,” that attaches when “legal rights” are to be “determined,” A forfeiture order under 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(4) does not determine legal rights; it is simply a “prerequisite[ ] to suit” that must be met before the Department may bring a collection action. It is thus analogous to a right-to-sue letter, or an exhaustion requirement–statutory conditions precedent that enable a subsequent suit. The Seventh Amendment does not extend to such “preliminary” procedures.

Nos. 25–406 and 25–567 (June 4, 2026) (citations omitted).