Barr v. American Assn. of Political Consultants, Inc.

Last updated

Barr v. American Assn. of Political Consultants, Inc.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued May 6, 2020
Decided July 6, 2020
Full case nameWilliam P. Barr, Attorney General, et al., v. American Association of Political Consultants, Inc., et al.
Docket no. 19-631
Citations591 U.S. ___ ( more )
140 S. Ct. 2335; 207 L. Ed. 2d 784
Case history
Prior
  • Summary judgment granted, Am. Ass'n of Political Consultants v. Sessions, 323 F. Supp. 3d 737 (E.D.N.C. 2018)
  • Vacated and remanded, Am. Ass'n of Political Consultants, Inc. v. FCC, 923 F.3d 159 (4th Cir. 2019)
  • Cert. granted, 140 S. Ct. 812 (2020)
Holding
The 2015 government-debt exception of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 violates the First Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinions
PluralityKavanaugh, joined by Roberts, Alito; Thomas (Parts I and II)
ConcurrenceSotomayor (in judgment)
Concur/dissentBreyer (concurring in the judgment with respect to severability and dissenting in part), joined by Ginsburg, Kagan
Concur/dissentGorsuch (concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part), joined by Thomas (Part II)
Laws applied
U.S. Const. Amend. I
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991

Barr v. American Assn. of Political Consultants, Inc., 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the use of robocalls made to cell phones, a practice that had been banned by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), but which exemptions had been made by a 2015 amendment for government debt collection. The case was brought by the American Association of Political Consultants, an industry trade group, and others that desired to use robocalls to make political ads, challenging the exemption unconstitutionally favored debt collection speech over political speech. The Supreme Court, in a complex plurality decision, ruled on July 6, 2020, that the 2015 amendment to the TCPA did unconstitutionally favor debt collection speech over political speech and violated the First Amendment. [1]

Contents

Background

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) was enacted to help consumers deal with growing amounts of unsolicited advertising and messaging they were receiving by telephone systems. One provision was to prohibit the use of any automated call system to contact consumers on a manner which they may be charged for the call, such as on cell phones, without the consumer's prior consent, as outlined at 47 U.S.C.   § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) . This effectively banned robocalls from making calls to cell phones. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was authorized to oversee and fine those that misuse this provision, as well as giving states powers to seek civil remedies in court.

In 2015, Congress passed the Bipartisan Budget Bill as part of its normal appropriations process. It included a brief amendment to the TCPA that made an exemption to § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) to allow for automated calls related to debts owned to the federal government. [2]

Political advocacy groups, such as those that run polls, have generally been adverse to robocall restrictions as it limits their ability to get their message out and to measure how well a candidate is performing in informal surveys, which they feel is an important part of the election process. [3] [4] After the 2015 Bipartisan Budget Bill was passed, a group of advocacy groups filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina in May 2016, challenging that that new amendment was unconstitutional as it created a content-based form of discrimination on speech in violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. [2] The groups' tactic was aimed at trying to invalidate § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) as a whole, and not just the new amendment, by showing that the limitations it placed as a whole were content-based distriction. [2] The District Court granted summary judgement for the government asserting that while there was speech discrimination, it met the basis of strict scrutiny serving a compelling government interest, in this case, collecting on debt it was owed.

The advocacy groups appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. There, the Fourth Circuit vacated the District Court's ruling and remanded the case for further review. The Fourth agreed in the District Court's concept that there was a rationale to apply the strict scrutiny test for the government-debt speech exemption, but ruled that the District Court's application of the test was incorrect, given the nature of the TCPA was meant to be prohibitive. The Fourth Circuit also found that the amendment was severable from the original TCPA law, and thus invalidated the new amendment. [2]

Supreme Court

The government asked the Supreme Court to hear the case, and the Supreme Court granted the petition in January 2020. [5] Oral arguments were heard on May 6, 2020, part of the block of cases that were held via teleconference due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Oral arguments focused on how the strict scrutiny tests should apply to the 2015 amendment, and whether that amendment was severable from the entire TCPA, questions that had been brought up from the Fourth Circuit's decision. [2]

The Supreme Court issued its ruling on July 6, 2020. The Court affirmed the Fourth Circuit's decision in that the 2015 amendment, in that its exception for the government-debt clause violated the First Amendment, and because the amendment was severable from the rest of the TCPA, invalidated only that portion of the law.

First Amendment challenge

The 6–3 decision was complex. Six justices agreed that the government-debt amendment, or the entire TCPA, violated the First Amendment.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the plurality decision, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Kavanaugh agreed with the Fourth Circuit's reasoning that the 2015 amendment was a content-based restriction that should be judged by strict scrutiny, as per Reed v. Town of Gilbert , [6] and that it failed to pass the strict scrutiny test. [7] [8]

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in concurrence. She too would invalidate the government-debt amendment, but stated that the amendment failed on intermediate scrutiny, rather than strict scrutiny.

Justice Neil Gorsuch would have gone further than the plurality and argued that the TCPA's entire robocall restriction is a content-based restriction that fails strict scrutiny and thus could not be constitutionally enforced.

Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan, dissented, stating that strict scrutiny was not the correct standard to use. Justice Breyer disagreed with language in Reed v. Gilbert . He suggested that content discrimination should not always trigger strict scrutiny. Instead, the Court should consider "First Amendment values," applying strict scrutiny in cases involving "political speech, public forums, and the expression of all viewpoints on any given issue," but use a less strict standard when a case, as here, "primarily involves commercial regulation—namely, debt collection." In Breyer's view, courts should not "use the First Amendment in a way that would threaten the workings of ordinary regulatory programs posing little threat to the free marketplace of ideas."

Severability

With a majority of justices agreed that the debt-collection amendment was unconstitutional, the question arose whether the amendment could be severed from the rest of the TCPA, or whether the whole law was invalid. The Court ruled 7–2 that the amendment was severable.

Seven justices followed Kavanaugh's severability analysis, and would preserve most of the TCPA. Kavanaugh's opinion noted that the TCPA has an express severability clause. Even without this clause, the Court should apply the "presumption of severability" and allow as much of the statute to stand as possible. As Kavanaugh wrote, "constitutional litigation is not a game of gotcha against Congress, where litigants can ride a discrete constitutional flaw in a statute to take down the whole, otherwise constitutional statute."

Justices Gorsuch dissented from this part of the ruling, joined by Justice Thomas. These justices would issue an injunction preventing enforcement of the TCPA, allowing political robocalls to go out to cellphones.

Toilet flush

The case was also brought to international media attention after a toilet was heard being flushed during oral arguments. [9] [10] The FCC chairman Ajit Pai stated on Twitter "...the FCC does not construe the flushing of a toilet immediately after counsel said "what the FCC has said" to reflect a substantive judgment of the Supreme Court, or of any Justice thereof, regarding an agency determination." [9] Though it is not known for certain where the toilet flush came from, Slate alleged it came from Justice Breyer's microphone due to a history of technical difficulties with Zoom from him. [11]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991</span> U.S. federal law

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) was passed by the United States Congress in 1991 and signed into law by President George H. W. Bush as Public Law 102-243. It amended the Communications Act of 1934. The TCPA is codified as 47 U.S.C. § 227. The TCPA restricts telephone solicitations and the use of automated telephone equipment. The TCPA limits companies or debt collectors from calling clients or prospective customers using automatic dialing systems, artificial or prerecorded voice messages, SMS text messages, and fax machines. It also specifies several technical requirements for fax machines, autodialers, and voice messaging systems—principally with provisions requiring identification and contact information of the entity using the device to be contained in the message.

Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the First Amendment rights of candidates for judicial office. In a 5–4 decision, the court ruled that Minnesota's announce clause, which forbade candidates for judicial office from announcing their views on disputed legal and political issues, was unconstitutional.

United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, 529 U.S. 803 (2000), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court struck down Section 505 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which required that cable television operators completely scramble or block channels that are "primarily dedicated to sexually-oriented programming" or limit their transmission to the hours of 10 pm to 6 am.

Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564 (2002), followed by 542 U.S. 656 (2004), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court, ruling that the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) was unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.

Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington, 461 U.S. 540 (1983), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld lobbying restrictions imposed on tax-exempt non-profit corporations.

Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a Vermont statute that restricted the sale, disclosure, and use of records that revealed the prescribing practices of individual doctors violated the First Amendment.

United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709 (2012), is a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 was unconstitutional. The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 was a federal law that criminalized false statements about having a military medal. It had been passed by Congress as an effort to stem instances where people falsely claimed to have earned the medal in an attempt to protect the valor of legitimate recipients. A 6–3 majority of the Supreme Court agreed that the law was unconstitutional and violated the free speech protections under the First Amendment. Despite reaffirming the opinion that was previously issued by the Ninth Circuit, it could not agree on a single rationale. Four justices concluded that a statement's falsity is not enough, by itself, to exclude speech from First Amendment protection. Another two justices concluded that while false statements were entitled to some protection, the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 was invalid because it could have achieved its objectives in less restrictive ways.

Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified when municipalities may impose content-based restrictions on signage. The case also clarified the level of constitutional scrutiny that should be applied to content-based restrictions on speech. In 2005, Gilbert, Arizona adopted a municipal sign ordinance that regulated the manner in which signs could be displayed in public areas. The ordinance imposed stricter limitations on signs advertising religious services than signs that displayed "political" or "ideological" messages. When the town's Sign Code compliance manager cited a local church for violating the ordinance, the church filed a lawsuit in which they argued the town's sign regulations violated its First Amendment right to the freedom of speech.

Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218 (2017) is a Supreme Court of the United States case that affirmed unanimously the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the provisions of the Lanham Act prohibiting registration of trademarks that may "disparage" persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols with the United States Patent and Trademark Office violated the First Amendment.

Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC, 518 U.S. 604 (1996), was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Colorado Republican Party challenged the Federal Election Commission (FEC) as to whether the "Party Expenditure Provision" of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) violated the First Amendment right to free speech. This provision put a limit on the amount of money a national party could spend on a congressional candidate's campaign. The FEC argued that the Committee violated this provision when purchasing a radio advertisement that attacked the likely candidate of the Colorado Democratic Party. The court held that since the expenditures by the committee were made independently from a specific candidate, they did not violate the campaign contribution limitations established by the FECA, and were protected under the First Amendment.

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States addressing the constitutionality of California's FACT Act, which mandated that crisis pregnancy centers provide certain disclosures about state services. The law required that licensed centers post visible notices that other options for pregnancy, including abortion, are available from state-sponsored clinics. It also mandated that unlicensed centers post notice of their unlicensed status. The centers, typically run by Christian non-profit groups, challenged the act on the basis that it violated their free speech. After prior reviews in lower courts, the case was brought to the Supreme Court, asking "Whether the disclosures required by the California Reproductive FACT Act violate the protections set forth in the free speech clause of the First Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment."

Iancu v. Brunetti, No. 18–302, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), is a Supreme Court of the United States case related to the registration of trademarks under the Lanham Act. It decided 6–3 that the provisions of the Lanham Act prohibiting registration of trademarks of "immoral" or "scandalous" matter is unconstitutional by permitting the United States Patent & Trademark Office to engage in viewpoint discrimination, which violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

California v. Texas, 593 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the constitutionality of the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA), colloquially known as Obamacare. It was the third such challenge to the ACA seen by the Supreme Court since its enactment. The case in California followed after the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 and the change to the tax penalty amount for Americans without required insurance that reduced the "individual mandate" to zero, effective for months after December 31, 2018. The District Court of the Northern District of Texas concluded that this individual mandate was a critical provision of the ACA and that, with a penalty amount equal to zero, some or all of the ACA was potentially unconstitutional as an improper use of Congress's taxation powers.

Agency for Int'l Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), also known as Alliance for Open Society II, was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that compelled speech required as a condition for funding on foreign non-governmental affiliates of U.S. non-government organizations does not violate First Amendment rights.

Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the definition and function of auto dialers under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) to send unsolicited text messages. In a unanimous decision based on statutory interpretation of the TCPA, the Supreme Court ruled that auto dialers are defined by their function to either store or produce telephone numbers from a random or sequential number generator.

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with litigation over discrimination of local regulations based on the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The specific case deals with a religious-backed foster care agency that was denied a new contract by the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, due to the agency's refusal to certify married same-sex couples as foster parents on religious grounds.

Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, 141 S.Ct. 2373 (2021), is a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the disclosure of donors to non-profit organizations. The case challenged California's requirement that non-profit organizations disclose the identity of their donors to the state's Attorney General as a precondition of soliciting donations in the state. The case was consolidated with Thomas More Law Center v. Bonta. In July 2021, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that California's requirement burdened the donors' First Amendment rights, was not narrowly tailored, and was constitutionally invalid.

United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution as it related to patent judges on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In a complex decision, the Court ruled that these judges were considered "primary officers" under the Appointments Clause, normally subject to appointment through the US President and the US Senate, but to remedy the matter, the Court ruled that the constitutional issue is resolved by allowing the PTAB decisions to be subject to review by the appropriately-appointed Director of the Patent Office.

City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin, LLC, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the application of zoning restrictions on digital billboards in the city of Austin, Texas. In a 6–3 ruling, the Court ruled that the Austin regulation against off-premise digital signs was content-neutral and thus should be reviewed as a facial challenge rather than a strict scrutiny following from the reasoning in Reed v. Town of Gilbert.

Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate, 596 U.S. 289 (2022), was a case related to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States struck down section 304 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which limited the amount of money that candidates could be paid on personal loans to their campaign.

References

  1. ↑ Barr v. American Assn. of Political Consultants, Inc.,No. 19-631 , 591 U.S. ___(2020).
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 Edelman, Gilad (May 6, 2020). "Is There a Constitutional Right to Make Robocalls?". Wired . Retrieved July 6, 2020.
  3. ↑ Shepard, Steven (May 29, 2015). "New 'robocall' rules could leave Americans in the dark". Politico . Retrieved July 6, 2020.
  4. ↑ Lepore, Jill (November 16, 2015). "Politics and the New Machine". The New Yorker . Retrieved July 6, 2020.
  5. ↑ Reed, John; Merken, Sara (January 10, 2020). "Supreme Court Will Hear Robocall Debt Collection Case". Bloomberg News . Retrieved July 6, 2020.
  6. ↑ Reed v. Town of Gilbert , 576 U.S. ___ (2016)
  7. ↑ Wolf, Richard (July 6, 2020). "Supreme Court upholds law banning cellphone robocalls". USA Today . Retrieved July 6, 2020.
  8. ↑ "Supreme Court upholds cellphone robocall ban". Associated Press. July 6, 2020. Retrieved July 6, 2020.
  9. 1 2 "US Supreme Court hears toilet flush during oral arguments - a first". BBC News. May 7, 2020. Retrieved May 12, 2021.
  10. ↑ Barbesh, Fred (May 7, 2020). "Oyez. Oy vey. Was that a toilet flush in the middle of a Supreme Court live-streamed hearing?" . The Washington Post. Retrieved May 12, 2021.
  11. ↑ Feinberg, Ashley (May 8, 2020). "Who flushed? A Supreme Court investigation". Slate. Retrieved May 12, 2021.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.