The constitutionality of the FCC’s ability to levy substantial financial penalties without a jury trial is at the heart of a new petition filed by Fabrice Polynice, also known as South Florida pirate operator DJ Paz.
Polynice is challenging the commission’s $2.4 million forfeiture against him, arguing that the penalty is not only beyond his financial means but also violates his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, a claim that he believes is bolstered by recent landmark court decisions.
He is being fined for operating “Radio Touche Douce” from North Miami in February and March of 2023, though the commission cited his operation of the station since at least 2012.
We noted the response Polynice submitted to the commission’s notice of apparent liability, which was initially proposed in early 2024. The FCC said he did not contest having run Radio Touche Douce, only that he was unable to pay; he later provided tax returns to support his case. His gross adjusted income from 2021—2023, according to the tax returns he submitted, was less than $16,000 in each of those three years.
However, the commission rejected Polynice’s request for a forfeiture reduction, citing the egregiousness of his violations. It said he continued to operate the station even after U.S. marshals seized his broadcast equipment.
In the subsequent petition filed on July 7, Polynice’s attorney, Dan J. Alpert, argued that the $2.4 million is “grossly in excess” of his ability to pay.
But in addition to challenging his financial wherewithal, Polynice questioned the legal standing to impose civil penalties without a jury trial.
Fines without fair trial the heart of argument
“The one thing that the FCC fails to address, however, is the questionability of the constitutionality of its ability to impose the forfeiture under recent court decisions restricting that ability at this time,” Polynice’s attorney wrote in the petition.
He cited the SEC v. Jarkesy Supreme Court decision, a case which Polynice’s attorney explained was decided after the notice of apparent liability was issued by the commission.
In that case, the Supreme Court evaluated a Seventh Amendment challenge brought by an investment advisor and their firm to the SEC’s attempt to impose civil penalties for securities fraud in its own in-house administrative tribunals.
The decision, Polynice’s attorney argued, means that “before the federal government can impose a punitive fine” like the $2.4 million in his case, he has a right to a judge and jury, citing the Seventh Amendment.
“That right has not been afforded to Mr. Polynice in this proceeding,” his legal representation wrote.
The intent behind the commission’s penalty was also cited by Polynice’s representative, as he argued that the fine’s purpose is punitive, rather than restitutive.
AT&T v. FCC reinforces precedent
Polynice’s attorney also cited the AT&T v. FCC 2025 case, which he stated reinforced the Jarkesy ruling. In that case, the FCC issued a NAL for a forfeiture against AT&T, proposing a $57 million penalty for violations of the Telecommunications Act and FCC rules regarding protection of customer proprietary information. The court found that the imposition constituted a Seventh Amendment violation.
His petition includes a July 2024 white paper by Peter Karanjia, former deputy general counsel of the FCC.
Karanjia concluded that the Jarkesy decision is a “game-changer” for the FCC, as well as other administrative agencies, and that its Enforcement Bureau will not be able to continue with “business as usual.”
The Polynice petition concludes by requesting that the commission voluntarily reconsider its forfeiture order based on these arguments.
Recently, former FCC commissioner Nathan Simington dissented on several proposed fines related to pirate radio, pointing to a Supreme Court precedent established last August.
An unlicensed radio operator has never successfully won a legal challenge against the commission; though lighter financial penalties have often been agreed upon. But the ongoing legal landscape looks to test the traditional boundaries of its enforcement.
(Read Polynice’s petition for reconsideration filed with the FCC.)
