Supreme Court Ripple Effect: Jarkesy Case Sparks New Wave
Polynice’s legal team, led by Dan J. Alpert, contends the FCC’s forfeiture scheme violates the Seventh Amendment — the right to a trial by jury — just as the Securities and Exchange Commission’s internal penalty process did in Jarkesy.
“Before the federal government can impose a punitive fine like the one here,” Polynice wrote, “the defendant has a right to an Article III judge and jury.”
He asserts that the FCC’s fines serve a punitive function, meaning they should be subject to the same constitutional protections as criminal sanctions.
AT&T Case Adds Fuel to the Fire
Polynice’s petition also invokes AT&T v. FCC, a Fifth Circuit ruling earlier this year where a $57 million FCC fine against AT&T was deemed improper without a jury trial — further buttressing Polynice’s claim that his penalty should not stand under the current process.
Excessive and Unjust?
Aside from the constitutional argument, Polynice calls the fine excessive, given his limited income and prior submission of financial documents proving inability to pay. Yet, the FCC pointed to a string of prior violations when it refused to reduce the forfeiture.
This case could force a seismic shift in how federal agencies wield their power — particularly when it comes to levying massive penalties without stepping foot in a courtroom.
