The US Supreme Court just handed federal regulators a pair of wins that crypto firms should pay very close attention to. In two separate rulings issued on June 4, the Court upheld the enforcement authority of both the FCC and the SEC, rejecting constitutional challenges that could have kneecapped the agencies’ ability to police markets and penalize bad actors.
Two cases, one message: the agencies can enforce
In FCC v. AT&T, Inc., the Court ruled 8-1 that the FCC’s process for imposing civil penalties does not violate the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. AT&T and Verizon had argued otherwise, and they lost decisively.
The practical result: the FCC can collect penalties exceeding $57 million from AT&T and nearly $47 million from Verizon for violations related to customer data privacy. The broader enforcement actions in that batch totaled nearly $200 million.
The second case, Sripetch v. SEC, was even more lopsided. The Court ruled 9-0 that the SEC can seek disgorgement of profits obtained through unlawful activities without having to prove that specific investors suffered direct financial harm.
The Sripetch case involved a disgorgement exceeding $2 million connected to penny-stock fraud that impacted at least 20 companies.
Why the crypto market should care
The Sripetch ruling is particularly relevant. The Court clarified that the SEC’s power to seek forfeiture is based on net profits rather than individual investor losses. This means the SEC can calculate what a fraudulent operation earned and claw that back without needing to trace harm to individual wallets or brokerage accounts.
These decisions also arrive as a counterbalance to the 2024 ruling in SEC v. Jarkesy, which limited the SEC’s authority to use in-house administrative hearings for certain adjudications. The new decisions don’t reverse Jarkesy, but they clarify that while procedural boundaries exist, the SEC’s substantive enforcement capabilities remain robust.
The broader pattern is worth noting. The Supreme Court spent 2024 trimming agency powers in cases like Jarkesy and the landmark Loper Bright decision that overturned Chevron deference. Now, in 2026, it’s reinforcing those same agencies’ core enforcement functions with near-unanimous votes. The Court seems to be drawing a line: agencies can’t expand their own jurisdiction unchecked, but they absolutely can enforce the authority Congress already gave them.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
The US Supreme Court just handed federal regulators a pair of wins that crypto firms should pay very close attention to. In two separate rulings issued on June 4, the Court upheld the enforcement authority of both the FCC and the SEC, rejecting constitutional challenges that could have kneecapped the agencies’ ability to police markets and penalize bad actors.
Two cases, one message: the agencies can enforce
In FCC v. AT&T, Inc., the Court ruled 8-1 that the FCC’s process for imposing civil penalties does not violate the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. AT&T and Verizon had argued otherwise, and they lost decisively.
The practical result: the FCC can collect penalties exceeding $57 million from AT&T and nearly $47 million from Verizon for violations related to customer data privacy. The broader enforcement actions in that batch totaled nearly $200 million.
The second case, Sripetch v. SEC, was even more lopsided. The Court ruled 9-0 that the SEC can seek disgorgement of profits obtained through unlawful activities without having to prove that specific investors suffered direct financial harm.
The Sripetch case involved a disgorgement exceeding $2 million connected to penny-stock fraud that impacted at least 20 companies.
Why the crypto market should care
The Sripetch ruling is particularly relevant. The Court clarified that the SEC’s power to seek forfeiture is based on net profits rather than individual investor losses. This means the SEC can calculate what a fraudulent operation earned and claw that back without needing to trace harm to individual wallets or brokerage accounts.
These decisions also arrive as a counterbalance to the 2024 ruling in SEC v. Jarkesy, which limited the SEC’s authority to use in-house administrative hearings for certain adjudications. The new decisions don’t reverse Jarkesy, but they clarify that while procedural boundaries exist, the SEC’s substantive enforcement capabilities remain robust.
The broader pattern is worth noting. The Supreme Court spent 2024 trimming agency powers in cases like Jarkesy and the landmark Loper Bright decision that overturned Chevron deference. Now, in 2026, it’s reinforcing those same agencies’ core enforcement functions with near-unanimous votes. The Court seems to be drawing a line: agencies can’t expand their own jurisdiction unchecked, but they absolutely can enforce the authority Congress already gave them.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
