A North Miami man fined nearly $2.4 million by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for allegedly operating a pirate radio station is fighting back, filing a formal petition for reconsideration that challenges not only the penalty but also the very authority of the FCC to impose it.

Fabrice Polynice — also known as DJ Paz — is asking the Commission to rescind the June 6 Forfeiture Order (FCC 25-32), which penalized him for allegedly operating an unauthorized station, “Radio Touche Douce,” on 90.1 MHz for 22 days in early 2023. The FCC has characterized Polynice as a long-term pirate broadcaster dating back to at least 2012.

Polynice, represented by attorney Dan J. Alpert, contends that the fine is not only excessive given his financial situation but also unconstitutional under recent federal court rulings. His petition relies heavily on the 2024 U.S. Supreme Court decision in SEC v. Jarkesy and the 2025 Fifth Circuit ruling in AT&T v. FCC, both of which call into question the legitimacy of federal agencies imposing civil penalties without a trial by jury.

According to financial documents filed by Polynice, his adjusted gross income over the past three years averaged less than $16,000 annually. Despite this, the FCC rejected his request for a reduction, citing a history of unlicensed broadcasting.

Polynice’s legal team argues that under Jarkesy, civil penalties such as the one issued by the FCC must be adjudicated in an Article III court, with the right to a jury trial – not through the FCC’s internal administrative process. The petition cites language from the Jarkesy ruling stating that imposing such fines without a jury “violates the Seventh Amendment.”

“Jarkesy is a game-changer,” the filing states, adding that the FCC’s forfeiture process, which currently allows the agency to act as prosecutor, judge, and jury, is now on “thinning ice.”

The petition also references a white paper by Peter Karanjia, a former FCC deputy general counsel, which concludes that the Commission’s traditional “Notice of Apparent Liability to Forfeiture Order” process is likely unconstitutional in light of Jarkesy. Without Congressional action to authorize federal court proceedings for such penalties, Karanjia warns, the FCC’s enforcement authority is at risk.

Polynice’s filing contends that FCC penalties serve no compensatory function — funds go directly to the U.S. Treasury — making them punitive in nature and therefore clearly within the scope of the Seventh Amendment.

Unless the FCC voluntarily revisits its decision, the matter could ultimately end up in federal court, potentially setting precedent for how administrative agencies handle enforcement going forward. The petition formally requests that the Commission reconsider and withdraw its Forfeiture Order.