Term: 2019
Docket: 19-631
Barr v. American Association Of Political Consultants Inc.
- Pro
19-631 BARR V. POLITICAL CONSULTANTS DECISION BELOW: 923 F.3d 159 PRESS RELEASE OF APRIL 3, 2020 IN KEEPING WITH PUBLIC HEALTH GUIDANCE IN RESPONSE TO COVID-19, THE COURT WILL POSTPONE THE ORAL ARGUMENTS CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR THE APRIL SESSION. PRESS RELEASE OF APRIL 13, 2020 RESCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENTS BY TELEPHONE CONFERENCE. THE JUSTICES AND COUNSEL WILL ALL PARTICIPATE REMOTELY. CERT. GRANTED 1/10/2020 QUESTION PRESENTED: The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), Pub. L. No. 102-243, 105 Stat. 2394, generally prohibits the use of any "automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice" to "make any call" to "any telephone number assigned to a * * * cellular telephone service." 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) (Supp. V 2017). The TCPA excepts from that automated-call restriction any "call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party." Ibid. In 2015, Congress amended the TCPA to create an additional exception for calls "made solely to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States." Ibid. Respondents wish to use an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice to make calls to the cell phones of potential or registered voters to solicit political donations and to advise on political and governmental issues. First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 8-10, 12. The court of appeals held that the government-debt exception to the TCPA’s automated-call restriction violates the First Amendment. The court further held that the proper remedy was to sever the government-debt exception, leaving the basic automated-call restriction in place. The question presented is as follows: Whether the government-debt exception to the TCPA's automated-call restriction violates the First Amendment, and whether the proper remedy for any constitutional violation is to sever the exception from the remainder of the statute. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 18-1588
In the case of Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants Inc., 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding an exception to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) that allowed robocalls to cell phones for government debt collection purposes. The American Association of Political Consultants and other political organizations argued this provision violated their First Amendment rights as it favored one form of speech over another - specifically, government-debt-collection speech over political and other types of speech. In July 2020, the court agreed that this was indeed a content-based restriction violating free-speech rights but did not agree with plaintiffs' request to invalidate TCPA entirely due to its unconstitutionality; instead, they opted for severing the flawed government-debt exemption from rest part while leaving intact TCPA's general prohibition against robocalls to mobile devices.
In the dissenting opinion for Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants Inc., Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Kagan, argued that the government-debt exception to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) did not violate the First Amendment's free speech clause. They contended that Congress had a legitimate interest in collecting debt owed to it and thus could make content-based distinctions without violating constitutional principles. The justices further asserted that even if this provision was unconstitutional, it should be severed from TCPA rather than striking down the entire law as requested by plaintiffs. They emphasized their concern about maintaining a balance between protecting consumers from unwanted robocalls and allowing important governmental interests like debt collection.
