Pope’s one-word message to the United States goes viral

“The orders at issue did not settle the carriers’ legal obligations because, stated simply, they did not create an obligation to pay,” he went on.

“And the orders did not reflect the ultimate determination of any fact because, before the carriers could have been made to pay, the Government was required to prove its case to a jury,” said the chief justice.

The outcome was foreshadowed during oral arguments, where several justices appeared unconvinced by AT&T’s and Verizon’s constitutional objections and suggested that FCC penalty orders do not become legally binding until a court is asked to enforce them.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh notably suggested that the carriers had already secured an important concession from the government.

He noted that federal officials acknowledged FCC penalty orders are not self-executing nonbinding sans a jury trial.

“It seems like you’ve won on the law going forward, one way or the other,” Kavanaugh told the attorney representing the carriers, per ARSTechnica.

John Bergmayer, legal director at advocacy group Public Knowledge, hailed the ruling.

“The Supreme Court got this one right,” Bergmayer said in a press release.

“AT&T and Verizon sold access to their customers’ location data, then failed to stop bounty hunters and even a rogue sheriff from using it to track people who had no idea they were being followed,” he added.

“The FCC investigated, found the carriers liable, and proposed penalties—which the carriers were always free to challenge in court,” he said, noting further: “This decision keeps the FCC able to do the job Congress gave it.”