2026-04-21 10:05:28 UTC / 路透社
作者：约翰·克鲁泽尔与安德鲁·钟
2026年4月21日 美国东部时间上午10:05 更新于1小时前
节点运行失败
2025年4月23日拍摄的资料插画中，美国联邦通信委员会标志与美国国旗同框。路透社/达多·鲁维奇/插画/档案照片 购买授权，打开新标签页
华盛顿，4月21日（路透社）——美国最高法院将于周二审理一起争议案件，涉及美国联邦通信委员会对美国主要无线运营商处以的罚款，原因是这些运营商被指未能保护客户数据。这是最新一起提交大法官、挑战美国监管机构权限的案件。
这场法律纠纷的核心在于，联邦通信委员会在运营商尚未获得法庭听证机会的情况下，对威瑞森通信（VZ.N）和美国电话电报公司（T.N）等运营商处以数千万美元罚款，是否超出了该机构根据美国宪法所拥有的权限。
点击订阅路透社可持续发展转型简报，了解影响企业与政府的最新ESG趋势。
>
广告 · 滚动继续阅读
共和党籍总统唐纳德·特朗普政府正在为联邦通信委员会的内部财务罚款制度辩护。
2024年美国最高法院限制了美国证券交易委员会的内部执法程序后，此次纠纷成为最新一起考验联邦机构内部执法安排是否违反宪法保障被告陪审团审判权的案件。
此次联邦通信委员会案件源于该机构2024年对无线运营商处以的近2亿美元罚款，认定这些企业未经用户同意非法向第三方出售客户位置数据访问权限。
广告 · 滚动继续阅读
罚款明细包括：对T-Mobile（TMUS.O）处以8000万美元罚款；对2020年被T-Mobile收购的斯普林特处以1200万美元罚款；对美国电话电报公司（T.N）处以5700万美元罚款；对威瑞森通信（VZ.N）处以近4700万美元罚款。
威瑞森和美国电话电报公司已缴纳罚款，但同时提起了诉讼，最终导致联邦上诉法院在联邦通信委员会所谓的没收令罚款内部程序合法性问题上出现分歧。
总部位于纽约的美国第二巡回上诉法院维持了联邦通信委员会对威瑞森的罚款判决。该法院裁定，只要被指控方能够在法庭上挑战政府的追缴行动，联邦通信委员会就有权进行初步罚款评估，这一裁决促使威瑞森向最高法院提起上诉。
在美电话电报公司的案件中，总部位于新奥尔良的美国第五巡回上诉法院裁定，联邦通信委员会对不当行为的初步认定和罚款剥夺了该公司的宪法陪审团审判权。这一裁决促使联邦通信委员会向最高法院提起上诉。
在特朗普政府代表联邦通信委员会内部制度进行的辩护中，美国司法部律师辩称，该机构的评估不具有约束力。律师们在法庭文件中称，如果政府在法庭提起执法诉讼，将允许企业在陪审团面前陈述案情。
而无线运营商方面则表示，联邦通信委员会的制度不当地将本应在法庭进行的程序转移至内部，剥夺了企业的陪审团审判权。他们补充称，联邦通信委员会的初步评估会在被告获得法庭听证机会前就对其造成名誉损害。
拥有6比3保守派多数席位的最高法院近年来在多项重大判决中对联邦机构权力采取了狭义解释立场。
最高法院在2024年的证券交易委员会案中，以违宪为由驳回了该机构内部对保护投资者免受证券欺诈的法律执行。这项以6比3票通过的裁决由法院保守派推动，称由证券交易委员会而非联邦法院处理的欺诈罚款执法程序，违反了宪法第七修正案规定的陪审团审判权。
去年，最高法院以6比3票的裁决支持了联邦通信委员会，认可了该机构为向低收入美国民众及其他受益群体推广电话和宽带互联网接入的数十亿美元项目的融资方式。
约翰·克鲁泽尔报道；威尔·邓汉姆编辑
我们的报道标准：汤森路透社信任原则，打开新标签页
US Supreme Court to assess FCC power to fine in clash with wireless carriers
2026-04-21 10:05:28 UTC / Reuters
By John Kruzel and Andrew Chung
April 21, 2026 10:05 AM UTC Updated 1 hour ago
节点运行失败
United States Federal Communications Commission logo and U.S. flag are seen in this illustration taken April 23, 2025. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab
WASHINGTON, April 21 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court is set on Tuesday to hear a dispute involving fines imposed by the Federal Communications Commission on major U.S. wireless carriers for their alleged failure to safeguard customer data in the latest case to reach the justices challenging the powers of a U.S. regulatory agency.
The legal fight concerns whether the FCC’s assessment of tens of millions of dollars in penalties against carriers such as Verizon Communications VZ.N and AT&T T.N – before the companies had their day in court – exceeded the agency’s authority under the U.S. Constitution.
Make sense of the latest ESG trends affecting companies and governments with the Reuters Sustainable Switch newsletter. Sign up here.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
Republican President Donald Trump’s administration is defending the FCC’s in-house financial penalty system.
The dispute marked the latest case to test whether a federal agency’s internal enforcement arrangement violates provisions of the Constitution ensuring a defendant’s right to a jury trial after the Supreme Court in 2024 curbed the power of in-house proceedings at the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The FCC case stems from nearly $200 million in fines that the agency imposed in 2024 against wireless carriers after concluding that the companies had unlawfully sold access to customer location data to third parties without securing users’ consent.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
The penalties included an $80 million fine to T-Mobile TMUS.O; a $12 million fine to Sprint, which T-Mobile acquired in 2020; a $57 million fine to AT&T T.N; and a nearly $47 million fine to Verizon Communications VZ.N.
Verizon and AT&T paid the fines. The companies also filed court challenges that eventually led to a split among federal appellate courts over the legality of the FCC’s in-house procedure for imposing the penalties, known as forfeiture orders.
The New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the FCC’s fine against Verizon. 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.
In the government’s defense of the FCC’s in-house system, Justice Department lawyers argued on behalf of Trump’s administration 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 in court papers.
The wireless carriers, for their part, said that the FCC’s system impermissibly moves in-house proceedings that belong in court, depriving the companies 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, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has taken a narrow view of federal agency power in several major decisions in recent years.
The court in its 2024 SEC ruling rejected as unconstitutional that agency’s in-house enforcement of laws protecting investors against securities fraud. The 6-3 ruling, powered by the court’s conservatives, said that agency proceedings seeking penalties for fraud that are handled by the SEC itself instead of in federal court violate the Constitution’s Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.
In a victory for the FCC, the Supreme Court in a 6-3 ruling last year endorsed the way the agency funds its multi-billion-dollar program designed to expand phone and broadband internet access to low-income Americans and other beneficiaries.
Reporting by John Kruzel; Editing by Will Dunham
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab
发表回复