The federal courts have spoken, and the message is clear: the days of unaccountable bureaucratic enforcement are numbered.

On April 17, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Federal Communications Commission’s FCC forfeiture order against a broadcaster, signaling urgent need for internal reform. In so doing, the court joined a growing judicial movement to restore constitutional limits to the administrative state.

If the FCC doesn’t want to find itself repeatedly on the losing end of such rulings, it must act now to modernize its enforcement processes and recommit to our foundational principles of due process and statutory fidelity.

This is not a niche procedural issue; it’s a broader test of whether federal agencies can continue operating in legal gray zones. In sum, it raises a critical question: does the rule of law still matter?

In Jarkesy v. SEC, the Supreme Court ruled that Americans are entitled to a jury trial when facing significant monetary penalties from federal agencies. This decision affirmed what should have been obvious: The government cannot bypass the Constitution simply by labeling its penalties “administrative.”

Though Jarkesy dealt with the Securities and Exchange Commission, its implications reach far wider. The FCC, which similarly relies on internal adjudication to impose forfeitures, is not exempt.

The Fifth Circuit’s April ruling is the first concrete indication that Jarkesy is reshaping the legal terrain in real time. The court struck down the FCC’s order on grounds that mirror those at issue in Jarkesy — namely, concerns about due process and the proper role of the judiciary. We at the FCC must take this warning seriously. Our enforcement model, which depends heavily on internal proceedings and interpretations of ambiguous statutory authority, is increasingly vulnerable to constitutional challenge.

If the FCC seeks to preserve the legitimacy and durability of its actions, we must proactively reform—not just reactively litigate.

Moreover, this is not just about Jarkesy. The broader judicial trend, as seen in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, reflects a sharp decline in judicial deference to agency interpretations. The days of rubber-stamped regulatory overreach, justified by vague or expansive readings of congressional statutes, are coming to an end. Courts demand that agencies operate strictly within the clearly defined limits Congress prescribes. That’s good for democracy, good for accountability, and essential for the rule of law.

President Trump has long recognized the dangers of an unaccountable administrative state. His call to rein in regulatory overreach, most recently through Executive Order 14219 and the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), reflects a broader commitment to restoring constitutional order. These reforms are not theoretical — they are a mandate. The FCC must align with this vision by ensuring that every enforcement action is grounded in clear statutory authority, subject to judicial review, and respectful of due process. Anything less risks violating both the law and the trust of the American people.

This is why DOGE is so promising. Every federal agency should embrace its mission — to identify and dismantle outdated, burdensome, or legally tenuous regulations. With its deep backlog of legacy rules and complex enforcement structures, the FCC is an ideal candidate for reform.

Some may argue that stricter limits on agency enforcement will weaken regulatory effectiveness. We disagree. Reforms rooted in transparency, statutory clarity, and procedural fairness don’t undermine the law — they strengthen it. They ensure that when the government acts, it does so with legitimacy and public trust.

So what must be done?

First, the FCC should immediately begin a top-to-bottom review of its enforcement procedures. That includes the internal adjudication mechanisms used to impose fines and penalties, many of which were designed in an era of far greater deference to agency discretion. We should ask whether those procedures offer adequate due process, whether they comply with current constitutional standards, and whether they can be improved to better reflect the rule of law.

Second, we must reassess whether our interpretations of statutory authority — especially in areas like forfeiture and license enforcement — are firmly grounded in congressional intent. The courts have little patience left for creative agency readings of the law. It’s time to return to textual fundamentals.

Third, the FCC should actively support the work of DOGE and other reform initiatives. This includes identifying rules and precedents that, while perhaps once useful, now serve little purpose beyond entrenching bureaucratic inertia or legal risk.

Finally, we should foster a new culture within the agency — one that values legal humility over expansive power. Agencies should not be in the business of stretching the law to fit their policy preferences. That’s Congress’s job. Our role is to execute the law faithfully, not reinvent it.

The FCC has always adapted in times of technological and legal change. From the transition to digital broadcasting to the dawn of the broadband era, we have reformed our processes to meet the moment. Now, facing a constitutional correction in administrative law, we must do so again.

If we get this right, we won’t just avoid future litigation — we’ll build a regulatory framework that is stronger, fairer, and more resilient for decades to come.

Nathan A. Simington is a commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission. Gavin M. Wax is his chief of staff and senior advisor.