In this case , the FCC has imposed nine-figure
penalties without supplying the most basic component
of due process: "fair notice of conduct that is forbidden
or required." FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. , 567
U.S. 2 39, 253 (2012). The FCC has tried to reconcile
competing congressional commands to raise funds by
auctioning off valuable spectrum and to ensur e the full
participation of small businesses by offering them
substantial discounts . Given the value of the
spectrum at issue , the FCC expects and allows small
businesses to partner with larg e companies , while
prohibiting the latter from exercising de facto or de
jure control over the former . The rules for de jure
control are clear, and there is no dispute they were
fully satisfied here. The rules for de facto control are
anything but clear and amount to nothing more than an ad hoc agency judgment based on the totality of the
circumstances. For years, the FCC managed to square
that amorphous standard—and the fact that the FCC
evaluate s control only after an auc tion is closed , and
requires small -business bidders to pay the full, non discounted price if it finds them to be controlled—with
fair-notice requirements by providing an opportunity
to cure after identifying de facto control deficiencies.
Here, however, u nder pressure from congressional
critics and dominant providers, the FCC provided onl y
the empty formalism of an opportunity to cure without engaging with p etitioner or identifying the conduct
necessary to avoid a nine -figure penalty .
The question presented is:
Whether imposing massive penalties without
providing either clear ex ante guidance or a
meaningful post hoc opportunity to cure satisfi es the
fair notice requirements of the Due Process Clause
and administrative law .

Whether imposing massive penalties without providing either clear ex ante guidance or a meaningful post hoc opportunity to cure satisfies the fair notice requirements of the Due Process Clause and administrative law