Barr v. American Assn. of Political Consultants, Inc.
Headline: Court severs 2015 government-debt robocall exception, upholds the 1991 ban on most robocalls to cell phones, making political robocalls harder while removing special treatment for debt collectors.
Holding: The Court held that the 2015 government-debt exception to the robocall ban was unconstitutional and must be severed, leaving the longstanding 1991 restriction on most cell-phone robocalls in place.
- Removes special robocall permission for government-debt collectors.
- Political callers cannot rely on automated calls to cell phones under the statute.
- Leaves the 1991 robocall restriction operative and enforceable.
Summary
Background
A group of political callers challenged a federal rule that bans most automated calls to cell phones. Congress enacted that general ban in 1991, and Congress added a 2015 exception allowing robocalls made solely to collect debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States. The callers argued the exception gave unfair, unconstitutional treatment to government-debt collectors and sought relief in court.
Reasoning
The Court considered whether to strike the whole 1991 robocall restriction or just the 2015 government-debt exception. Relying on the Communications Act’s longstanding severability clause and the Court’s presumption in favor of severing unconstitutional provisions, the Court found the 2015 exception unconstitutional for unequal treatment and severed it from the statute. The Court explained the remainder of the law functioned on its own (it had done so for 20-plus years before 2015) and therefore stayed in force.
Real world impact
The ruling removes the special exception that had allowed government-debt robocalls and leaves the original robocall restriction operative. The Court noted that people should not be penalized for calls made between the 2015 change and final judgment on remand. The judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit was affirmed.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Sotomayor concurred in the judgment (agreeing severability was appropriate). Justice Breyer (joined by Ginsburg and Kagan) would have upheld the exception under intermediate scrutiny. Justice Gorsuch (with Thomas in part) agreed the law violated the First Amendment but disagreed about severance as the proper remedy.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?