Sprint Corporation, nka Sprint LLC, et al. v. Federal Communications Commission, et al.

This case arises from Federal Communications Commission forfeiture orders just like the ones in FCC v. AT&T, Inc., 608 U.S. ___ (2026). The decision below addressed the same questions at issue in AT&T, but without the benefit of this Court’s decision in AT&T or the government’s significant legal concessions about the limited force of FCC orders and the proper scope of enforcement proceedings. This petition also presents two important statutory questions. The Communications Act of 1934 requires providers of telecommunications service—i.e., voice service—to protect the confidentiality of “customer proprietary network information” (CPNI), defined in relevant part as information that both (i) relates to the “destination, location, and amount of use of a telecommunications service,” and (ii) is made available to the telecommunications carrier “solely by virtue of the carrier-customer relationship.” 47 U.S.C. § 222(h)(1) (emphasis added). The Act also caps the total penalties that the FCC may assess “for any continuing violation” involving a single act or failure to act. Id. § 503(b)(2)(B). The questions presented are:

1. Whether this Court should, at minimum, grant, vacate, and remand in light of AT&T and the government’s concessions in that case.

2. Whether “location” CPNI under § 222 refers only to call-location information, not other information about the location of a mobile device.

3. Whether the number of “continuing violations” arising from a single failure to act under § 503(b) is a legal question for courts to decide, without deferring to the FCC’s conclusion.