Supreme Court seems wary of limiting federal regulators’ power in a data privacy case
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court seemed wary of limiting the power of federal regulators on Tuesday in a case over multimillion-dollar penalties levied against telecommunications giants Verizon and AT&T.
The cellular companies appealed to the justices after the Federal Communications Commission found they sold customers’ location data without proper safeguards. The FCC slapped the companies with hefty penalties totaling over $100 million.
The telecom companies challenged the process as unconstitutional because it gives them little opportunity to tell their side of the story in court. Key justices seemed skeptical, however. “I wonder if, at the end of the day, you’re really just talking about a PR problem,” Chief Justice John Roberts said during arguments Tuesday.
The Trump administration defended the process as an essential regulatory tool and argued that it does leave a path to court. But the government also said companies don’t have to pay penalties right away, a concession that amounts to a win for the companies, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said. “It seems like you’ve won on the law going forward one way or the other,” Kavanaugh told an attorney for AT&T and Verizon.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has limited the power of federal agencies before, including overturning a decades-old decision that had given regulators an advantage in court and stripping another agency of a major tool in fighting securities fraud. A victory for AT&T and Verizon in this case could have widespread effects for other agencies who use similar enforcement mechanisms, advocates said.
Companies who get notices that they’ve run afoul of FCC regulations now have two options: pay the penalty and then contest it before an appeals court or refuse to pay and wait for a federal lawsuit that could eventually go before a jury. Doug Orvis, a veteran telecom attorney, said neither option is viable, so most companies pay up.
A ruling is expected by late June.
Supreme Court revives wounded veteran’s lawsuit against a contractor over suicide bombing
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday cleared the way for a veteran wounded by a suicide bomb in Afghanistan to sue the government contractor for whom the attacker was working when he built the explosive.
The court ruled 6-3 in favor of former Army Spc. Winston Hencely, who was wounded when he stopped a man on his way to detonate an explosive vest at a Veterans Day weekend 5K race at Bagram Airfield in 2016.
Ahmad Nayeb instead blew himself up when he was confronted, killing five people and wounding more than a dozen, according to court documents.
The projectiles fractured Hencely’s skull and tore through his brain, leaving him without the full use of much of the left side of his body. He also has abnormal brainwaves, seizures and traumatic brain injury, his lawyers wrote.
Hencely acted to sue the company, Fluor Corporation, under state law after an Army investigation faulted the company’s failure to supervise Nayeb, an Afghan employee who built the vest on the job site inside the base, court documents say.
The Irving, Texas-based engineering construction company argued that it could not be sued because it was working during wartime for the government, which is generally immune to lawsuits.
The high court disagreed. The majority said companies are protected when they are fulfilling government contracts, but that Fluor allegedly failed to carry out its duties in supervising Nayeb.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Justices Samuel Alito, John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh dissented. Alito wrote that Hencely’s lawsuit may intrude on the government’s wartime powers and decisions, including a policy requiring contractors to maximize employment of Afghans.
